[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Simple] comments on draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-00
I am sorry it took so long to respond here. Thanks for your comments.
Responses below:
Michael Froman wrote:
Hello,
I have a few comments about draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-00. I
haven't seen any of this on-list (maybe I've missed it) so please
excuse me if you've already discussed this.
--- #1 concern ---
Sec. 4.2 What if (like in RLS using xcap) the information used to
construct the ACL is not nearby? There appears to be no mode of
responding with "I'm working on it and I'll let you know." The phrase
that specifically concerns me is "Furthermore, the initial state sent
by the presence agent MUST include an ACL document." This is a
current problem in 4662 when used with xcap, and it would be nice to
avoid creating a similar problem in this spec.
I don't understand the problem. The presence server would just wait to
send the NOTIFY until it had the state.
--- Other comments and concerns ---
Sec. 2. All the trust levels assume a whitelist auth model, what
about blacklists (especially in the Full Trust model)?
Blacklists can work too; there is a blocked=true flag in a rule. So if
you want to blacklist, you'd have something like this:
<rule id="1" blocked="true">
<member>sip:blacklist1 at example.com</member>
<member>sip:blacklist2 at example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="2">
<other/>
</rule>
Sec. 3.2.1 Trading inter-domain network traffic for higher server
load (and I'm guessing much higher) based on all the acl comparisons
and presence doc comparisons? There is an entire class of reverse
lookups (finding all ACLs that might have referenced 'W' or worse
finding all the RLSs that have 'W') that have the potential to be
expensive. Just making sure that's called out.
OK, I'll mention. But this is exactly the tradeoff - CPU for messaging
traffic. I don't think the increase in CPU load is that high however.
--- Nits ---
Sec. 3.1.3 'R' is not defined - maybe "This represents the view that
the watcher is supposed to receive." --> "This rule ID, R, represents
the view that the watcher is supposed to receive."
fixed.
Sec. 3.1.3 All the bullets should start with the same verb tense ("If
R is null" , "If R is not null", "If R was not null"...)
fixed.
Thanks!
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosen at cisco.com
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple