[Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps and draft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2006 00:37 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoV0S-0007Yc-9l; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:37:44 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoV0Q-0007U8-Qm for simple@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:37:42 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoV0P-0003qO-FY for simple@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:37:42 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2006 17:37:40 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,221,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="1822475234:sNHT31289108"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k590bdMR030573 for <simple@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:37:39 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k590bdcL014795 for <simple@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:37:39 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([10.86.241.56]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:37:39 -0400
Message-ID: <44888DBD.5080306@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:51:09 -0400
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simple WG <simple@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2006 00:37:39.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[E91FDF30:01C68B5C]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1762; t=1149813459; x=1150677459; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jdrosen@cisco.com; z=From:Jonathan=20Rosenberg=20<jdrosen@cisco.com> |Subject:Group=20interest=20in=20draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps=20and=20dra ft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DK+hFpxx3zHG2GLa2crh0MjxWMi0=3D; b=b326A5hti22RQSTqlVtB6hK0LT9FAugqIQjASQ7iLjPAs4MF8hkH2rZIoLOuImY0uexWnORQ U/4ZGInfAO/NLaj4mgwgQaxXGdeN4D8GUovsbvkL69pGG81hKzXlsMWu;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5.cisco.com; header.From=jdrosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Subject: [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps and draft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?
X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions <simple.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/simple>
List-Post: <mailto:simple@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: simple-bounces@ietf.org
These drafts expired some time ago. You can still retrieve them from my site: http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps-00.txt http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps-00.txt These drafts define an xcap usage and corresponding schemas for declaring capabilities for authorization policies. A client application would fetch these at startup, and based on them, know what kind of authorization policies a user can specify. For example, if a service provider defines new permissions, like 'limited', 'full', and 'unfettered', the capabilities document would indicate to the client that these are presence, and the client could place them into a presence-rules document it uploads to the server. These drafts are only really needed if we are worried about deployments where people implement subsets or extensions to presence-rules, and the clients don't otherwise worry about them. The group has agreed in the past that these drafts were important and we agreed to adopt them as WG items. However, there hasn't been a lot of interest recently, and it will take effort for me to go and revive them and get them finished up. So, I'd like to poll for interest - please let me know if you think these are important and would like to move forward with them, and whether you plan on implementing or using these (or already are). Thanks, Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 Cisco Systems jdrosen@cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
- [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-comm… Jonathan Rosenberg