Re: [Geopriv] consensus call: common-policy and <id> element

Naturally, I'm in favor of the change. I also agree with Henning's
remarks below.

Cheers,
Aki

ext Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I'm in favor of the change (probably with some attribute name more
> descriptive than 'val'...). If the change is made, all instances should
> be similar, to avoid confusion. Also, the element needs to be defined so
> that it doesn't accidentally allow <id entity="alice@example.com">some
> random text</id>, having made that mistake myself.
>
> Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>> after some discussions regarding the xcap/id comment raised by aki i
>> would like to solicit feedback in order to update the draft:
>> background:
>> ----------
>>
>> xcap only allows node selection based on element name, attribute or
>> position. it does not allow selection based on element content.
>>
>> assumptions:
>> -----------
>>
>> a single rules contains multiple <id> elements. updates of an individual
>> <id> element is desired (without uploading the entire rule).
>>
>> the requested change only impacts the <id> element based on the
>> assumption that the desired updates effect mostly the <id> element
>> (rather than actions or transformations).
>>
>> impact of the change:
>> --------------------
>>
>> the identity needs to be expressed as an attribute rather than as a
>> value.
>> consequence: -----------
>>
>> - xml schema needs an update - examples need to be updated
>>
>> to illustrate the change here is an example:
>>
>> an example from the previous common-policy version:
>>
>> <rule id="f3g44r1">
>>
>> <conditions>
>> <identity>
>> <id>bob@example.com</id>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (this is the important part)
>> </identity>
>> <validity>
>> <from>2003-12-24T17:00:00+01:00</from>
>> <to>2003-12-24T19:00:00+01:00</to>
>> </validity>
>> </conditions>
>>
>> <actions/>
>>
>> </rule>
>>
>>
>> here is the example based on the requested change:
>>
>> <rule id="f3g44r1">
>>
>> <conditions>
>> <identity>
>> <id val=">bob@example.com"/>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (this is the important part)
>> </identity>
>> <validity>
>> <from>2003-12-24T17:00:00+01:00</from>
>> <to>2003-12-24T19:00:00+01:00</to>
>> </validity>
>> </conditions>
>>
>> <actions/>
>>
>> </rule>
>>
>> question: --------
>>
>> a) should we put the value of the id element into an attribute?
>> b) the <id> value appears more than once in schema. hence, there is the
>> question which <id> (and id related) elements should be affected by the
>> change. please take a look at the following list:
>>
>> conditions/identity/id (1)
>> conditions/identity/domain/except (1)
>> conditions/identity/domain (2)
>> conditions/identity/except (2)
>> conditions/identity/asserted/id (2)
>> conditions/identity/asserted/domain (2)
>> conditions/identity/asserted/except (2)
>> conditions/identity/aserted-by/id (2)
>> conditions/identity/asserted-by/domain (2)
>> conditions/identity/asserted-by/except (2)
>> conditions/identity/anonymous/domain (2)
>> conditions/identity/any-identity/domain (2)
>> conditions/identity/any-identity/except-domain (2)
>>
>> (1) = common-policy schema - common-policy draft version 04
>> (2) = common-policy schema - new common-policy draft (see
>> http://www.tschofenig.com/TEMP/common-policy/)
>> ciao
>> hannes
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:26:19 +0300