Good question. I would say URI set rather than URI.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the idea of providing a policy URI applies
more to DHCP only. My arguments are below.
In HELD the possession model was chosen as a starting point with the
option to support the access control authorization model later. There
are a few things one still want to do that are not part of the Common
Policy/Geolocation Policy work we did and they are described in this
document (HELD context):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt
We also tried to enhance the gelocation policy document to support the
functionality described in
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt and to change
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt to re-use the geolocation
policy format (but these approaches seemed to be rather useless).
I could imagine that adding the ability to upload Common
Policy/Geolocation Policy as an add-on to
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt is a lot easier than
using XCAP, particularly since I believe that 95% of the cases will only
make usage of a fraction of Common Policy (and nothing from the
geolocation policy document).
I would also add that I still believe that one would be much better of
with a combined model of possession and access control model where the
Device uploads the received LbyR to a separate server, such as a
presence server, and there full-version of access control policies are
enforced. This would require something like
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-garcia-geopriv-indirect-publish-00.txt
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Winterbottom, James
>Sent: 21 September, 2009 09:18
>To: Hannes Tschofenig; Richard Barnes; GEOPRIV
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
>
>For the HELD example, would the policy be per URI, or per URI set?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf
>> Of Hannes Tschofenig
>> Sent: Monday, 21 September 2009 4:14 PM
>> To: 'Richard Barnes'; 'GEOPRIV'
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] A modest proposal w.r.t. location URI policy
>>
>> Makes sense to me.
>>
>> >-----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
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>this email is prohibited.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>[mf2]
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
