Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

Hi Andy,

in the use case where the proxy either adds a location-by-value or 
location-by-reference where would the proxy get the privacy policies 
from in the first place?

If it has the rule and wants to convey location-by-value then why 
wouldn't it just include the rules instead of putting a reference to the 
ruleset in there that has to be retrieved first.

In the Geopriv-L7 design team we were puzzled about the case where a LIS 
adds privacy rules to the PIDF-LO before signing it. In this case the 
LIS is the SIP proxy and the challenges remain the same.

Ciao
Hannes


Andrew Newton wrote:
> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
>> We may be talking past each other. Currently, RFC 4119 has
>>
>>  <xs:complexType name="locPolicyType">
>>    <xs:sequence>
>>      <xs:element name="retransmission-allowed" type="xs:boolean"
>>         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>>      <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:dateTime"
>>         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>>      <xs:element name="external-ruleset" type="xs:anyURI"
>>         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>>      <xs:element name="note-well" type="tns:notewell"
>>         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>>      <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
>>         maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>    </xs:sequence>
>>   </xs:complexType>
>>
>> I assume you're talking about the external-ruleset element. Regardless 
>> of how the rest of the GEOPRIV object is carried, this can point 
>> anywhere, including some static web object, a cid, or even be another 
>> data URL if you want to carry the policy along with the actual 
>> location information.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... we seem to have caught a bug in 4119.  Because the descriptive 
> text calls that element 'ruleset-reference' and not 'external-ruleset'. 
>  Anyway, from the text (page 8):
> 
>       This URI SHOULD use the HTTPS URI scheme; and if it does, the
>       server that holds these rules MUST authenticate any attempt to
>       access these rules.  Usage rules themselves may divulge private
>       information about a Target or Rule Maker.  The URI MAY,
>       alternatively, use the CID URI scheme [7], in which case it MUST
>       denote a MIME body carried with the Location Object by the using
>       protocol.
> 
> In other words, it would appear that the list of URIs allowed is HTTPS 
> or CID (though this doc SHOULD be more explicit).  data: is not mentioned.
> 
> This means that a PIDF-LO with a CID reference cannot be converted to a 
> data: URI.
> 
> -andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip