Yes, this is the problem.
I guess your modification would solve the problem and should not break
anything, as filters targeted to URIs not matching any resources are
ignored. However my knowledge about this area is limited, I just
started to explore it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil at telio.no]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 12:55 PM
To: Peknik Silvestr
Cc: simple at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Simple] problem with filters and resource lists
I guess you are referring to the following text:
"If the URI indicated by the filter is for one resource whose URI is
NOT under the RLS administrative control, the RLS propagates the
filter to all the fanned out subscriptions sent to destinations
outside the administrative domain of the RLS."
This seems to have the limitation you mention below.
Would the following text fix it? would it break anything else?
"If the URI indicated by the filter is for one resource whose URI is
NOT under the RLS administrative control, the RLS propagates the
filter to all the fanned out."
Hisham
On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Silvestr.Peknik at tietoenator.com wrote:
Hello,
In draft-ietf-simple-event-filter-funct par. 4.1. is described how rls
server handles filters in subscription to resource list. Following
situation is not clear to me:
I have 2 lists in one RLS (name it RLS1):
list1 at example.com (bob at example.com, list2 at example.com)
list2 at example.com (alice at biloxi.com, sarah at example.com)
Then I have subscribe with filter:
SUBSCRIBE sip:list1 at example.com SIP/2.0
...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<filter-set xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-filter">
<filter id="999" uri="sip:sarah at example.com">
...
</filter>
<filter id="8439" uri="sip:alice at biloxi.com">
...
</filter>
</filter-set>
My current understanding is that the filter for alice will NOT be
propagated and will be lost, because:
1/ it will not be propagated in the subscribe to list2, because list2
is under administrative control of RLS1.
2/ it will not be applied by the RLS1, because it is not under it's
administrative control
This is similar to the example in the draft, but in the draft the
lists are in different RLSs - therefore the filter for alice is
propagated in the subscribe to list2.
This seems like an error to me, because the result is different for 2
lists in the same RLSs and in 2 different RLSs.
Can someone explain this?
Thank you,
Silvestr Peknik
Software Specialist
TietoEnator
Czech Software Center
Phone +420 599 096 027
E-mail silvestr.peknik at tietoenator.com
Vystavni 292/13
CZ-709 16 Ostrava
www.tietoenator.com
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple