Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: Xcap authorization rules - Multiple URIs in Iden tity

From: Tschofenig Hannes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:48:47 +0200

hi eva, 

i assumed that the 'and' was a typo. it cannot be 'and' since only a single
entity can send the request. 

have you looked at section 7.1 of the draft update?

http://www.tschofenig.com/snapshot/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-01_20Jun
e2004.txt

ciao
hannes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: Tschofenig Hannes; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: Xcap authorization rules - Multiple 
> URIs in Identity
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: 
> > > Also, note that the common policy doc needs to say that, when the 
> > > <conditions> element has multiple conditions (such as 
> <identity>), 
> > > the rule matches only if ALL conditions match (i.e., its 
> an AND at 
> > > that level).
> > > 
> > that's correct. 
> > 
> > ciao
> > hannes
> 
> I totally agree with you to have multiple URIs in the 
> <identity>, but I was wondering whether it makes sense to 
> allow multiple same XML elements in the <conditions>, e.g., 
> having two <identity> elements, because of the AND type of operation?
> 
> Assuming that a user defines e.g. two <validity> elements. 
> The rule matches only when both the <validity> elements match 
> at the same time - basically meaning that only the 
> overlapping part of the <validity> is the one which ever 
> matters. The same applies to all other elements.
> 
> If there were a restriction defined for having only one XML 
> element of the same name as direct child elements of the 
> <conditions> it might help the implementation (needs only be 
> prepared to have fixed amount of pre-defined XML elements).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> BR, Eva
> 
> 

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