Subject: [Simple] comments on draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-00

From: Michael Froman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:29:39 -0500

Hello,

I have a few comments about draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-00.  I  
haven't seen any of this on-list (maybe I've missed it) so please  
excuse me if you've already discussed this.

--- #1 concern ---
Sec. 4.2  What if (like in RLS using xcap) the information used to  
construct the ACL is not nearby?  There appears to be no mode of  
responding with "I'm working on it and I'll let you know."  The phrase  
that specifically concerns me is "Furthermore, the initial state sent  
by the presence agent MUST include an ACL document."  This is a  
current problem in 4662 when used with xcap, and it would be nice to  
avoid creating a similar problem in this spec.

--- Other comments and concerns ---
Sec. 2.  All the trust levels assume a whitelist auth model, what  
about blacklists (especially in the Full Trust model)?

Sec. 3.2.1  Trading inter-domain network traffic for higher server  
load (and I'm guessing much higher) based on all the acl comparisons  
and presence doc comparisons?  There is an entire class of reverse  
lookups (finding all ACLs that might have referenced 'W' or worse  
finding all the RLSs that have 'W') that have the potential to be  
expensive.  Just making sure that's called out.

--- Nits ---

Sec. 3.1.3 'R' is not defined - maybe "This represents the view that  
the watcher is supposed to receive." --> "This rule ID, R, represents  
the view that the watcher is supposed to receive."

Sec. 3.1.3 All the bullets should start with the same verb tense ("If  
R is null" , "If R is not null", "If R was not null"...)

-Michael.

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple