Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Protocols and Formats

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:48:41 -0400

At 01:11 PM 8/21/2003, Pete (Madscientist) wrote:
>|-----Original Message-----
>|From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>|Behalf Of Jon Kyme
><snip>
>|I'm not sure that scopes more "complicated" / fine-grained
>|than  local | organisational | global would in fact be useful,
>|but whether scope might be better represented as an attribute
>|of a "rule" or of the "policy" - this is a good question. I'd
>|go for per-rule, as I guess that it would make the policy more
>|compact (given that these scopes "nest" nicely) as you'd avoid
>|duplicating rules differing only in scope in the differently
>|scoped policies.
>
>Currently the way the XML-CPDL example works is to define scope in terms
>of a SYSTEM. A SYSTEM might be a user, organization, etc... defined by
>the implementor by subscription. For example, a small ISP might have a
>SYSTEM that corresponds with their global policy and is implemented at
>their gateway MTAs; they might then have another SYSTEM implemented for
>each of their store & forward customers running on the server(s) that
>make that transfer; they might have another SYSTEM defined and running
>for each of their hosted domains that subscribe to a custom-domain
>policy service; and below those they might have a SYSTEM defined for
>each user within one of these domains.
>
>In this example we would presume that user level SYSTEMs would be
>aggregated by domain level SYSTEMSs, that domain level SYSTEMS and S&F
>SYSTEMS would be agregated into the global policy SYSTEM. The
>relationships between these SYSTEMS (scope definitions) would be defined
>by the IMPORT and EXPORT rules defined in each SYSTEM.
>
>This structure allows the implementor to determin the granularity of
>scope to fit their needs.
>
>I will endeavor to create a document that clarifies this... in the
>interim, does this description make sense?

Would any of this be relevant to the consent framework? Do we need to 
define further what SCOPE is and how it works within the consent framework, 
or should that be something that is left for the language?

Yakov  

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