Re: [salud] New version of the ABNF-syntax

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 2/18/13 4:05 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> From: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>
>>
>> I've been trying to explain why this sort of wording doesn't work for
>> me, several times.  [...]
>
> I tried to avoid this problem by describing which <provider>s a given
> entity "owns", and thus has the right to define the meaning of
> <label>s that are governed by that <provider>:
>
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00341.html
>
>     5) Definition of meaning of <label>s:
>
>     5a) A <provider> has an "owner", which is the entity that was the
>         registered owner of the domain name <provider-id> on the date
>         <date> (with respect to rule (2)).
>
>     5b) If an entity is the first registrant of a domain name
>         <provider-id>, it owns all <provider>s with that <provider-id> and
>         all <date>s preceding when it registered the domain name.
>
>     5c) The entity owning <provider> defines the meaning of a
>         <private-name>, whether it is used as an <alert-category> or an
>         <alert-indication>.
>
>     5d) The entity owning <provider> within a <private-name> (in either an
>         <alert-category> or an <alert-indication>) defines the meaning of
>         each <alert-indication> which is a <label> following that
>         <private-name> and preceding the next <alert-indication> which is
>         a <private-name>.
>
>     5e) Entities SHOULD use only one <provider> value for all <private-name>s
>         that they define.
>
> Does that approach work for you?

The issue isn't who is the "owner" of the label, but rather what rights 
are restricted to owners.

It is possible that the "owner" of a label neither inserts the URN into 
an Alert-Info nor defines the actual alert data structures in an 
endpoint that are selected by the Alert-Info URN. It may just strike 
some agreements with others about these things.

For instance, example.com may make it known that Bob and Carol work for 
the foo department with label [e-mail], while Ted and Alice work 
for the bar department with label [e-mail]. Then I may configure 
my incoming proxy to identify calls from Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice, and 
insert a corresponding Alert-Info for them. And I may configure my 
devices to map [e-mail] and [e-mail] to the alerts I want 
to hear when getting calls from people in those departments.

I guess an alternative to the above is that I use my own private labels 
for those cases. But in any case, somebody other than the owner may be 
inserting the alert-info.

	Thanks,
	Paul