Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
"Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> Mon, 21 September 2009 07:28 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800EC3A6A21 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W+N3l1PcJGLy for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBDF3A6849 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8L7TkJZ000469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:29:46 +0200
Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8L7TjLV018693; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:29:45 +0200
Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:29:40 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:27:13 +0300
Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501B2E682@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF10650E9C3@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
Thread-Index: Aco6V7UyheUn+3/9S0yMzHF43lijGQAKtO6QAAAqG7AAAO+okA==
References: <4AB6D17C.3010109@bbn.com><024201ca3a82$a6b8f860$b34ba20a@nsnintra.net> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF10650E9C3@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
To: "ext Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2009 07:29:40.0237 (UTC) FILETIME=[47C4F3D0:01CA3A8D]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:28:59 -0000
Hi James, Good question. I would say URI set rather than URI. Furthermore, I wonder whether the idea of providing a policy URI applies more to DHCP only. My arguments are below. In HELD the possession model was chosen as a starting point with the option to support the access control authorization model later. There are a few things one still want to do that are not part of the Common Policy/Geolocation Policy work we did and they are described in this document (HELD context): http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt We also tried to enhance the gelocation policy document to support the functionality described in draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt and to change draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt to re-use the geolocation policy format (but these approaches seemed to be rather useless). 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 would also add that I still believe that one would be much better of with a combined model of possession and access control model where the Device uploads the received LbyR to a separate server, such as a presence server, and there full-version of access control policies are enforced. This would require something like http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-garcia-geopriv-indirect-publish-00.txt Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org >[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Winterbottom, James >Sent: 21 September, 2009 09:18 >To: Hannes Tschofenig; Richard Barnes; GEOPRIV >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy > >For the HELD example, would the policy be per URI, or per URI set? > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf >> Of Hannes Tschofenig >> Sent: Monday, 21 September 2009 4:14 PM >> To: 'Richard Barnes'; 'GEOPRIV' >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy >> >> Makes sense to me. >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org >> >[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes >> >Sent: 21 September, 2009 04:06 >> >To: 'GEOPRIV' >> >Subject: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy >> > >> >We've been struggling for a while with how one should >manage policies >> >on location URIs that one receives via an LCP -- either >DHCP or HELD. >> >As Martin's recent post in a DHCP thread pointed out, the >trouble is >> >that we have 1. Ways to deliver location URIs (HELD/DHCP), and 2. A >> >way to manage a specified policy document (XCAP), but not >3. A way to >> >find the policy URI for a given location URI. >> > >> >I would like to propose that we resolve the latter problem by >> ><drumroll/> providing a policy URI alongside the location URI. >> > For example, in HELD >> > >> ><locationURI policy="http://foo/bar">http://foo/bar</locationURI> >> > >> >... or in DHCP .... >> > >> >LuriType=2 Policy URI ... >> > >> >I think we could agree that this URI MUST be accessible using XCAP >> >(using the pres-rules AUID, I guess), but one would want to observe >> >that a client could implement just HTTP GET and PUT to that URI to >> >retrieve and replace the entire policy document (this being the >> >simplest version of XCAP). This would provide a pretty >light-weight >> >way for clients to manage policy on location URIs. >> > >> >There are a few other subtleties to work out -- how the >policy URI is >> >controlled, requests parameters and error codes for HELD, how the >> >possession model looks in pres-rules -- but I wanted to propose the >> >general idea to the list to see if there are any obvious problems >> >with it. If not, I may go write a draft... >> > >> >Cheers, >> >--Richard >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Geopriv mailing list >> >Geopriv@ietf.org >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geopriv mailing list >> Geopriv@ietf.org >> https://www.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 >Geopriv@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv >
- [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI p… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location U… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location U… Winterbottom, James
- Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location U… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/Geolo… James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Winterbottom, James
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Geopriv] HELD using XCAP wrt Common Policy/G… Shida Schubert