Re: [Simple] Draft on optimized presence federation

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at cisco.com>]

Thanks for your comments. Responses below:

Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This draft addresses an important problem, assuming we want to support
> SIMPLE based presence between large domains. I think it is also
> important to address the problem with minimum affect to the UAs, as this
> draft does. The key question seems to be whether we want to allow a
> domain to decide how much it wants to reveal on the policies of its
> users' policies to a particular other domain. If we set that as a
> requirement, I think building upon the ideas proposed in this draft is
> the way to go.   

If you buy into the idea of some kind of optimization like this, I think 
you absolutely need to build in controls that allow a domain to decide 
on the performance/privacy tradeoff.

> I have one specific question:
>
> Have you considered whether the ACL format can effectively cope with
> "domain" and "exception" logic in common policy? For instance the common
> policy RFC has a following example rule:
>
>        <rule id="f3g44r1">
>            <conditions>
>                <identity>
>                    <many domain="example.com">
>                        <except id="sip:alice at example.com"/>
>                        <except id="sip:bob at example.com"/>
>                    </many>
>                </identity>
>            </conditions>
>            <actions/>
>            <transformations/>
>        </rule>
>
> In this kind of case (assuming no other rules) the presence server would
> know that everyone else from example.com would get a certain view, while
> alice and bob would be blocked. Is this readily supported in ACL doc by
> listing two rules there? (BTW, instead of calling the ACL elements
> rules, how about calling them e.g. views to avoid confusion with common
> policy terminology?) 

I believe so. The ACL document would look like:

<rule id="1">
  <member>sip:alice at example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="2">
  <member>sip:bob at example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="3">
  <other/>
</rule>

this would tell the originating domain to do a subscribe for alice and 
bob individually (since there are no rules defined for their presence, 
so each needs to have a subscription extended), and then a rule for 
everyone else.

-Jonathan R.


--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen at cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com


_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple