Subject: [Simple] Group interest in draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps and draft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps?

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:51:09 -0400

These drafts expired some time ago. You can still retrieve them from my 
site:

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps-00.txt
http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-simple-pres-policy-caps-00.txt

These drafts define an xcap usage and corresponding schemas for 
declaring capabilities for authorization policies. A client application 
would fetch these at startup, and based on them, know what kind of 
authorization policies a user can specify. For example, if a service 
provider defines new permissions, like 'limited', 'full', and 
'unfettered', the capabilities document would indicate to the client 
that these are presence, and the client could place them into a 
presence-rules document it uploads to the server.

These drafts are only really needed if we are worried about deployments 
where people implement subsets or extensions to presence-rules, and the 
clients don't otherwise worry about them.

The group has agreed in the past that these drafts were important and we 
agreed to adopt them as WG items. However, there hasn't been a  lot of 
interest recently, and it will take effort for me to go and revive them 
and get them finished up.

So, I'd like to poll for interest - please let me know if you think 
these are important and would like to move forward with them, and 
whether you plan on implementing or using these (or already are).

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

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