Subject: [Simple] Presence Authorization Discussion G: Scope (again)

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:54:44 -0400

One of the perpetual issues we face with the authorization work, is the 
scope of the policies. What do we *really* need right now?

At this point in the game, I strongly believe we should keep this to an 
absolute, bare minimum. We can always add more as we understand real 
needs. But, right now, real presence systems provide rudimentary 
capabilities. We need to be able to do that for sure, but much more than 
that should probably wait until clear requirements and use cases are 
presented.

So, I would propose the following:

1. per discussion F, all notion of further conditioning based on 
attributes be removed. This means that the inclustion-set type is 
eliminated entirely.

2. We have the ability to either provide each attribute or not. Thus, 
things like <provide-class> become booleans.

3. We have the ability to provide specific services based on the URI 
scheme or the full URI

4. We have the ability to provide no device information, all devices, or 
devices selected by device ID

5. we have the ability to provide the <person> element or not.

And thats it. That allows you to provide information on the coarsest 
grain, selecting which services and devices to provide based on their 
primary keys, and for the next level down, granting or denying specific 
pieces of information.

I think the bar should be pretty high on adding more than this at this 
time.

Comments?

-Jonathan R.

[this ends the discussion items on presence authorization]
-- 
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

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