Re: [Geopriv] Common Policy Update

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

thanks for the quick response.

I have added the following sentence to Section 7.1;
"
If a child element of <identity> is in a namespace that is not
known or not supported, it can be ignored.
"
and I deleted Section 12 about extensibility.

Here is the new draft version:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-09.txt
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-09.html

Ciao
Hannes

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> Inline,
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Sunday, 2 April 2006 5:52
>> AM To: [e-mail] Subject: [Geopriv] Common Policy Update
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> based on the discussion regarding the identity extension I have
>> compiled a new draft version. Please find the updated draft at:
>> 
>> http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-09.txt
>>  
>> http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-09.html
>>  (Note that I have not yet submitted the document.)
>> 
>> The important modification relates to the introduction of a new 
>> extension point at the <identity> element. Here is the modified XML
>>  schema:
>> 
>> ------------
>> 
>> ~snip~
>> 
>> <!-- //conditions/identity --> <xs:complexType name="identityType">
>>  <xs:complexContent> <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> <xs:choice
>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:element name="one"
>> type="cp:oneType"/> <xs:element name="many" type="cp:manyType"/>
>>>> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
>>>> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> 
> 
> The addition only needs to be:
> 
>>> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
> 
> Since the minOccurs and maxOccurs on the <xs:choice...> should
> suffice.
> 
> 
>> </xs:choice> </xs:restriction> </xs:complexContent> 
>> </xs:complexType>
>> 
>> ~snip~
>> 
>> ------------
>> 
>> This issue was discussed during the Geopriv working group session
>> at the last IETF meeting.
>> 
>> Additionally, I have added a new section about extensiblity with
>> the following content:
>> 
>> ------------
>> 
>> 12.  Extensibility
> 
> 
> It is good to see this section here, but I question whether it was
> needed, particularly at this point.  I suggested a one sentence
> clarification to Section 7.1 that covered this for identity only.
> 
> If this is retained, then I think that it needs to be a little
> clearer.  Each point should include notes on the impact of including
> an extension, which is different for each.


> 
> 
> 
>> This document can be extended in the following ways:
>> 
>> o  Conditions: The XML schema allows new child elements of the 
>> <conditions> element to be defined.
> 
> 
> Unknown conditions cause a processor to always ignore the rule, since
> they MUST evaluate as if the condition was not matched.
> 
> 
>> o  Transformations: The XML schema allows new child elements of the
>>  <transformations> element to be defined.
> 
> 
> An unknown transformation also causes the rule to be skipped, since
> the processor cannot be sure which sections of the document are
> removed by the transformation.
> 
> 
>> o  Actions: The XML schema allows new child elements of the
>> <actions> element to be defined.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the impact of an unknown action would be.  I can
> see arguments for either ignoring the action or and invalidating the
> rule; I suspect that the rule would be invalidated though.
> 
> 
>> o  Extensions to the Identity Element: The XML schema allows new 
>> child elements of the <identity> element to be defined.
> 
> 
> Extensions to identity are the only elements subject to an OR, and
> therefore they can be safely ignored without increasing permissions.
> 
> 
>> o  URI Schemes: New URI schemes can be defined for the 'id'
>> attribute according to [10].
>> 
>> Unknown extensions can be safely ignored without impacting the
>> user's privacy.  In order to allow a RM to learn which extensions
>> are supported by a PS the policy capability extensions might be
>> useful (see [11], [12] and [13]).
>> 
> 
> 
>> ------------
>> 
>> Thanks to Henning, Allison, Ted, Andy and Martin for the identity 
>> discussions. Please let me know if you are happy with the update.
>> 
>> Ciao Hannes
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you
> have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of this email is
> prohibited. 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [mf2]


_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv