tokens in the following way:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<filter-set xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-filter">
<ns-bindings>
<ns-binding prefix="ca"
urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"/>
</ns-bindings>
<filter id="123" uri="sip:presentity@example.com">
<trigger>
<changed>//ca:A1</changed>
</trigger>
</filter>
</filter-set>
Or
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<filter-set xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-filter">
<ns-bindings>
<ns-binding prefix="pidf" urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"/>
<ns-binding prefix="gp"
urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"/>
<ns-binding prefix="cl"
urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civilLoc"/>
</ns-bindings>
<filter id="1" uri="sip:presentity@example.com">
<trigger>
<changed>
/pidf:presence/pidf:tuple/pidf:status/gp:geopriv/gp:location-info/cl:civicAd
dress/cl:A1
</changed>
<changed>
/pidf:presence/pidf:device/gp:geopriv/gp:location-info/cl:civicAddress/cl:A1
</changed>
<changed>
/pidf:presence/pidf:person/gp:geopriv/gp:location-info/cl:civicAddress/cl:A1
</changed>
</trigger>
</filter>
</filter-set>
Do we know anything about the implementation status of RFC 4661?
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
>Sent: 29 July, 2009 18:21
>To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; geopriv@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
>draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt
>
>Could you cite some examples, please.
>
>Brian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:30 AM
>> To: geopriv@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Geopriv] My concern with draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
>> 05.txt
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after reading RFC 4660 and RFC 4661, which is heavily used by
>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt I had some concerns.
>RFC 4661 is
>> a very generic format for event notification filtering and
>it is good
>> to re-use the work that was done there. There is, however, a problem
>> with reusing it without putting additional restrictions on
>its usage,
>> namely one can accomplish the similar (if not the same) effect using
>> many different ways (at least the XML documents look different that
>> are sent in the SUBSCRIBE body).
>>
>> To me that sounds a lot like the issues we went through with GML.
>> There we also wanted to make the life of the implementer easier by
>> restricting the available options down to an acceptable minimum.
>>
>> I believe we should do the same with
>draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters as
>> well.
>> If we find a way how to accomplish a certain functionality then the
>> structure of the XML document is going to be described in detail and
>> that's the way how it looks like and nothing else is allowed.
>>
>> Do others share my concerns?
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
