Subject: [Geopriv] common-policy update

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:54:45 +0200

hi all, 

we have worked on a draft update that can be found at: 
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/geopriv/

this directory contains the text/html files and the xml schema including
some instance documents (as examples). 
(i used the xml editor oxygen to validate the instance documents against
the xml schema. they worked fine.)

the update includes the modified text for the identity condition section
and the respective changes throughout the document. this text contains
the functionality that was agreed during the paris ietf meeting (with
the minor comment that the discussion about the tel uri's was a bit
fuzzy and this part might be a bit shaky). 

i will setup an issue tracker (if needed) to make sure that we capture
all comments. 

note that we have not yet submitted this draft version. we want todo a
document review before we submit it just before the deadline. 

ciao
hannes

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:18:03 -0400

A quick comment: I think RFC 2396 uses 'scheme', not 'schema', to 
designate the type of URI.

I didn't see much discussion of tel URIs on my quick scan, but at the 
level of functionality supported, this is probably unnecessary.

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:02:40 +0300

>document review before we submit it just before the deadline. 
Great, looks good and definitely better. I have put up an online w3c 
schema validation tool at <http://validate.openlaboratory.net/> which is 
based on Xerces C++ library, feel free to use it (and yes your examples 
validate).  I'll add some schema related comments (I'll agree with most 
of the Martin's concerns as well): first I'd like to remove all 
instances of xsi:schemaLocation hints (and corresponding ns 
declarations) from the example instance docs. Secondly, I see 
common-policy as a framework which defines a necessary part of the whole 
authorization policy. So e.g. without actual <actions> or 
<transformations> you can certainly identify several <rules> for an 
identity, but you can't do much without  those  actions. So I'd prefer 
that common-policy would not specify any content-type and the schema 
would only define these types (what it currently has), i.e. 
presence-auth would include these common-policy types and it would 
define the content-type with all of these action/transformation stuff. 
This would mean in practice the same model that partial-pidf format and 
xml-patch-ops are using. We would then avoid having one unnecessary ns 
declaration and what's more, a more consistent content-type usage.
thanks,
Jari