Subject: [Simple] Presence authorization: confirmation vs. accept-subscription

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:33:30 +0200

Hi,

A short question before commenting further on the semantic presence authorization rules:

The presence authorization rules draft defines three actions: "confirmation", "accept-subscription" and "provide-presence". "confirmation" is derived from the common policy spec. It says that if there is a "confirmation" action, the subscription is put to pending state and it waits for the rule maker to upload further rules. 

However, what if one matching rule defines the action "confirmation" and another one "accept-subscription" & "provide-presence"? Intuitively (and by the additiveness principle) this means that the "accept-subscription" is the more "liberal" rule, and should be followed. However, there is no text in the draft describing how to combine the actions, only transformations are covered.

Regards,
	Markus 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:57:05 -0500

Markus,

This is a good comment. Generally, the permissions (actions and 
transformations) should ideally be orthogonal. If they're not, its 
worthwhile looking into combining them. So, let us look at which 
combinations make sense:

confirmation  | accept-sub |  provide-pres | comment
------------------------------------------------------------------
  false           false        false          do nothing - makes sense
  false           false        true           doesnt make sense - need
                                              to accept sub to
                                              provide presence
  false           true         false          basic polite blocking
  false           true         true           basic white list
  true            false        false          pending
  true            false        true           makes no sense
  true            true         false          makes no sense
  true            true         true           makes no sense

So, it seems like there are only a few combinations that make sense. 
Perhaps it would be a better idea to combine all three into a single 
operation - <sub-handling> and have the following values:

block : deny the subscription
confirm : subscription is pending
polite-block: accept it, but provide no presence
allow: accept it and provide presence

In terms of privacy, these would be in increasing order of integral 
values. That means that if one rule assigns a value of "confirm", and 
another "polite-block", the result is "polite-block".

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

[email-masked] wrote:

> The presence authorization rules draft defines three actions:
> "confirmation", "accept-subscription" and "provide-presence".
> "confirmation" is derived from the common policy spec. It says that
> if there is a "confirmation" action, the subscription is put to
> pending state and it waits for the rule maker to upload further
> rules.
> 
> However, what if one matching rule defines the action "confirmation"
> and another one "accept-subscription" & "provide-presence"?
> Intuitively (and by the additiveness principle) this means that the
> "accept-subscription" is the more "liberal" rule, and should be
> followed. However, there is no text in the draft describing how to
> combine the actions, only transformations are covered.
> 
> Regards, Markus
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:57:05 -0500

Markus,

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.