[Geopriv] Common Policy Update

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

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"/>
                 </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

    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.

    o  Transformations: The XML schema allows new child elements of the
       <transformations> element to be defined.

    o  Actions: The XML schema allows new child elements of the <actions>
       element to be defined.

    o  Extensions to the Identity Element: The XML schema allows new
       child elements of the <identity> element to be defined.

    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