>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
>Sent: 21 September, 2009 04:06
>To: 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
>
>We've been struggling for a while with how one should manage
>policies on location URIs that one receives via an LCP --
>either DHCP or HELD. As Martin's recent post in a DHCP thread
>pointed out, the trouble is that we have 1. Ways to deliver
>location URIs (HELD/DHCP), and 2. A way to manage a specified
>policy document (XCAP), but not 3. A way to find the policy
>URI for a given location URI.
>
>I would like to propose that we resolve the latter problem by
><drumroll/> providing a policy URI alongside the location URI.
> For example, in HELD
>
><locationURI policy="http://foo/bar">http://foo/bar</locationURI>
>
>... or in DHCP ....
>
>LuriType=2 Policy URI ...
>
>I think we could agree that this URI MUST be accessible using
>XCAP (using the pres-rules AUID, I guess), but one would want
>to observe that a client could implement just HTTP GET and PUT
>to that URI to retrieve and replace the entire policy document
>(this being the simplest version of XCAP). This would provide
>a pretty light-weight way for clients to manage policy on
>location URIs.
>
>There are a few other subtleties to work out -- how the policy
>URI is controlled, requests parameters and error codes for
>HELD, how the possession model looks in pres-rules -- but I
>wanted to propose the general idea to the list to see if there
>are any obvious problems with it. If not, I may go write a draft...
>
>Cheers,
>--Richard
>_______________________________________________
>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
