1. As you know, RFC 4661 was written with the SIP protocol in mind. So,
the filters it discusses are
a bit different from what would be needed for Geopriv. So, I assume you
are planning on using the spirit,
not the letter of RFC 4661.
2. Please, please do not try and subset XPath. I realize that XPath is
a complex specification but if you
try and subset it you will open yourself to months of argumentation.
Second, most vendors already have a
XPath implementation and it's better to just use it rather than prepare
an implementation for a subset of XPath
All the best, Ashok
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I don't know how well RFC 4661 is interoperable.
>
> I care about the persons who have to implement this.
> Note that we are talking about dumping this functionality into a LIS. The
> LIS will most likely have to implement this functionality without potential
> for re-use with other applications.
>
> Maybe the implementation of RFC 4661 is simple and I am worried without a
> reason.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
>> Sent: 29 July, 2009 20:52
>> To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; geopriv@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt
>>
>> Having looked at this, I'm wondering if restricting
>> (prohibiting) certain xpath constructions is wise. I agree
>> suggesting specific ways (the first in your examples) is preferred.
>>
>> Do you see an actual interoperability problem, or merely an
>> opportunity to provide a short cut method to avoid
>> implementing the full xpath?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:02 PM
>>> To: 'Brian Rosen'; geopriv@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
>>>
>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
>>
>>> 05.txt
>>>
>>> For example, RFC 4661 would allow you to detect changes in civic
>>> address 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
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
