RE: [XCON] Policies in the data model

Actually the idea of the authors of the data model draft from the very
beginning was to have a minimalist set of policies good enough to define
the basic actions in a conference (see section 3.7.2. of the 03 version
). 

>From the 00 version of the draft we defined a semantic approach
following the guidelines of the "Conference Policy Authorization Rules"
draft
(http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-niemi-xcon-cpcp-rules-00.txt)
and the "common policy" draft (draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy).

This information has been removed from the last version of the data
model because some people complained about the idea. 

We can introduce that information again in the draft making the
modifications needed to adapt it to the requirements of the WG.

Oscar 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] 
Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2007 14:07
To: Chris Boulton
Cc: Aki Niemi; Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF); XCON
Subject: Re: [XCON] Policies in the data model

I would argue that policies are generally a rat-hole and we may want to
punt on these for now. In SIMPLE, it has taken years to finish the
policy documents, and the problem there is much more constrained.  
(And, as one of the co-authors, I'm pretty sure the solution is over-
engineered.)

Or, alternatively, have an extremely minimal, but extensible, policy set
that addresses only two questions:

- who can modify the conference description
- who can create a conference from a template

Once you get to the "can create conferences with no more than 5 members,
but only on alternate Tuesdays that aren't holidays", we'll be
celebrating the tenth anniversary of the WG.

If we can't quickly agree on a minimalist set of policies, it's a good
sign that this isn't ready for protocol work.

Henning

On Mar 13, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Chris Boulton wrote:

> Gonzalo - I would just like to add to my previous comment.  If, for 
> the sake of progress, the group decides to bump policies from the Data

> Model then I will not object.  The critical path at this moment in 
> time is progress and not another blockade.
>
> Chris.
>

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon