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

["Winterbottom, James" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

I see Context as a being a container, one of the things of which it can contain is a common policy document.

Does that help?

Cheers
James


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Mon 9/21/2009 3:42 PM
To: James M. Polk
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); Winterbottom, James; Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/Geolocation Policy
 
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
> 
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]