Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules (Presence Authorization Rules) to Proposed Standard

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:24:06 -0500

I think that a downward reference from to RFC 3325 from this document
needs a bit of thought and consideration from the community as a
whole.

Quoting the abstract of RFC 3325:

Abstract

   This document describes private extensions to the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) that enable a network of trusted SIP servers to assert
   the identity of authenticated users, and the application of existing
   privacy mechanisms to the identity problem.  The use of these
   extensions is only applicable inside an administrative domain with
   previously agreed-upon policies for generation, transport and usage
   of such information.  This document does NOT offer a general privacy
   or identity model suitable for use between different trust domains,
   or use in the Internet at large.

The document in question specifies normative behavior when these
private extensions are encountered.

I guess the argument for allowing the reference is that even when we
cannot get some consensus to do something it is reasonable to have
normative rules for how our standards interact with that something.

How would we feel in similar situations?  How would we feel if we had
normative rules say for how AAA or other protocols interacted with
PPPOE?

How would we feel if someone tried to specify how some other IETF
protocol interacted with a vendor protocol in a standards track
document?

If we would be comfortable with those situations then there's little
to say.  If we would be uncomfortable with those situations, I'd like
to better understand how we think this is different and why we think
this is a good idea.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf