Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/Geolocation Policy

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

James: Don't worry.  Nothing in held-context is getting rid of or 
duplicating Common Policy.  The difference is that held-context does 
some things that are not possible today with common-policy or 
geopriv-policy framework.

Hannes/James: Thinking back to the discussions at the Dallas interim 
some time ago, I thought that there was a motion to move the 
held-context toward being more of an extension to common-policy, rather 
than an alternative policy transport.  Am I recalling correctly?

--Richard




James M. Polk wrote:
> At 02:27 AM 9/21/2009, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>> I could imagine that adding the ability to upload Common
>> Policy/Geolocation Policy as an add-on to
>> draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt is a lot easier than
>> using XCAP, particularly since I believe that 95% of the cases will only
>> make usage of a fraction of Common Policy (and nothing from the
>> geolocation policy document).
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what is being said here in Hannes' paragraph 
> above.
> 
> Is HELD really not needing Common Policy/Geolocation Policy because it 
> has another ID specifying some other mechanism?
> 
> If so, why would this WG allow this?
> 
> Common Policy is supposed to be "common" to everything, right?
> 
> Geolocation Policy is supposed to be used by everything Geopriv 
> specific, right?
> 
> It appears the net result of this - if true - is that DHCP has to jump 
> through hoops that HELD doesn't, even though HELD can.
> 
> James
> 
> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
> 
>