Subject: [Simple] pres-rules: extensibility

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:36:36 -0700

Hi,

The I-D says about extensibility:

6.  Schema Extensibility

   It is anticipated that future changes to this specification are
   accomplished through extensions that define new types of permissions.
   These extensions MUST exist within a different namespace.
   Furthermore, the schema defined above and the namespace for elements
   defined within it MUST NOT be altered by future specifications.
   Changes in the basic schema, or in the interpretation of elements
   within that schema, may result in violations of user privacy due to
   mis-interpretation of documents.

If someone extends the schema defined in the draft in a new namespace, the result could be a new authorization document with different semantics. So, when applying the extended authorization document on a raw presence document, authorization decisions are probably different as when applying the same authorization document restricted to the "original" namespace. 
The question is whether it is still makes sense to store the extended document under AUID "pres-rules" (or one should reserve a new AUID?), as Presence Servers understanding only the schema defined in draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-01 (and ignoring the extensions) could make incorrect decisions.

Thanks,
Krisztian

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