Subject: RE: [Simple] problem with filters and resource lists

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:23:35 +0100

Thanks for the information.

See inline comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Peknik Silvestr
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] problem with filters and resource lists

On Feb 13, 2006, at 3:13 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I found another thing I need help with.
>
> 3.3 (draft-ietf-simple-event-filter-funct-05):
> ...
>    A SUBSCRIBE request destined to a list URI [4] MAY include multiple
>    filters specific to individual resources.  This is achieved by
>    including multiple <filter> elements with different URIs of 
> resources
>    in each of those elements.  This resource specific filter overrides
>    any list specific filter, if any.  The list specific filter may or
>    may not include a URI.
>
> So I guess the filters do not stack. If I have filter without uri and
> another one with particular uri, only the one with particular uri is
> applied to the affected resource. Right?

Not quite. The text should be interpreted as saying that the individual 
resource specific filter is applied first.

Silvestr: ok thanks, it is now clear to me.

>
> Now consider following situation. I have [email-masked] (RLS1) and
> [email-masked] (RLS2). List2 is one of the resources in list1. List2
> contains [email-masked]. A subscription to list1 carries filters for bob 
> (F1)
> and for list2 (F2). F2 is propagated to the subscription to list2.
RLS2
> subscribes back to RLS1 to bob and propagates F2.

Why is F2 being propagated?

Hisham

Silvestr: I guess you mean the second propagation - you're right it is
my fault, F2 is not being propagated but anyway it is applied to bob
because it applies to all resources in list2. 

The result of is the same - bob is filtered by both F1 and F2. Is it
correct?

> So notifications from
> bob are filtered with both F2 (because it is propagated) and with F1
> because bob is under RLS1 administrative control and thus RLS has to
> filter the notifications.
>
> Should it work this way?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Silvestr Peknik
>

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

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:08:05 +0100

> The result of is the same - bob is filtered by both F1 and F2. Is it

It is difficult for RLS1 to apply Bob's filter to the NOTIFY coming 
from RLS2 since the XML document in the NOTIFY is represented in mime 
type application/rlmi+xml. The draft however does say the following:

" If the URI indicated by the filter is for one resource whose URI is
    under the RLS administrative control but is not part of the resource
    list that the subscription was addressed to, the filter is not
    propagated.  In this case, it is the RLS responsibility to make sure
    than this filter is applied to notifications issued, if information
    about that resource is present."

This means that RLS1 needs to make sure that F1 is *somehow* applied. 
ie. implementation specific.

Hisham