At 06:30 AM 8/14/2003, Andrew Akehurst wrote:
...........
> I recommend that we create an example that shows a hypothetical
> implementation and then solicit comments. We will use the comments to
> refine the example (replete with comments explaining what we've done and
> why). When the example stabilizes we can write a complete specification
> from that.
>
> This is sort of like watching where the grass wears out around a campus
> and then pouring the sidewalks over the worn out paths.
That seems like a good way to proceed. I found some of your previous
posts on the topic. I might be tempted to haggle about the syntax of
some of the examples, but the general thing that seems to come out
of it is that we need (as a minimum):
- definitions of tests against which to match messages
- definitions of different policy enforcement actions which
can be taken for incoming messages
- a set of policy statements which map a combination of tests
onto a policy enforcement action
Obviously there will be some scope issues with each of these areas,
although I'm not yet convinced that "scopes" are first-class
objects in their own right.
From the consent framework, section 3:
SCOPE û combination of SCOPE RULES defining how CONSENT POLICIES are shared
SCOPE RULES û rules defining how CONSENT POLICIES are shared
The question is whether SCOPE and SCOPE RULES are independent, or are they
just specific examples of CONSENT RULES and POLICIES.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg