Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

[I am massively behind in my mail again. My apologies.]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> So I will ask again: If the priority is a property of the I2RS client
> (this is how I understand the I2RS architecture document), why would
> it be configured as part of a NACM rule as suggestd in section 5.2 of
> draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs-00? Jeff's design makes the
> priority a property of the scope of a NACM group.

As discussed at the most recent interim, the priority should be made a
property of the group rather than a rule.  I have no issue with this.

To answer other comments regarding "why put this in NACM at all", this is an
attempt to show binding of user to priority.  In the case that NACM is in
use, I believe this would be required by I2RS.  In the absence of NACM, it
would be a similar property of a local user database.

-- Jeff