AW: [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps anddraft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?

"Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com> Fri, 30 June 2006 07:00 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwCyy-00081w-DA; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:00:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwCyx-00081i-VQ for simple@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:00:03 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwCyx-0006wz-TH for simple@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:00:03 -0400
Received: from gecko.sbs.de ([194.138.37.40]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwCyu-0008S9-6n for simple@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:00:03 -0400
Received: from mail1.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gecko.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k5U6xoYf021160; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:59:51 +0200
Received: from fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net (fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net [157.163.133.222]) by mail1.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k5U6xoPj018145; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:59:50 +0200
Received: from MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.145]) by fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:59:50 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: AW: [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps anddraft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:59:49 +0200
Message-ID: <A5D2BD54850CCA4AA3B93227205D8A30615081@MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps anddraft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?
thread-index: AcaLXQtq+Tmj3CZ8QZmBSlli7OOHRwQX+bog
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>, Simple WG <simple@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2006 06:59:50.0528 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7FDC800:01C69C12]
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a
Cc:
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

Hi Jonathan, 

your mail got lost in my inbox. Sorry for the late response. 

I think that these documents are important since they address the extensibility aspect of the authorization policy work. 
The drafts outline a simple approach. 

Ciao
Hannes
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@cisco.com] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2006 22:51
> An: Simple WG
> Betreff: [Simple] Group interest in 
> draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps 
> anddraft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?
> 
> 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-ca
ps-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 mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple