ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Protocols and Formats

2003-08-19 21:48:28
At 10:18 AM 8/15/2003, Andrew Akehurst wrote:
..........
> The question is whether SCOPE and SCOPE RULES are independent, or are
> they just specific examples of CONSENT RULES and POLICIES.

It's tempting to think that "scope" is merely an attribute of a rule,
rather than an entity in its own right.

If scope were a simple value then I don't see what attributes
it could have, other than being "local", "shareable" or whatever
value the scope has. (I invented these labels at random, I'm not
claiming they're good suggestions, just examples that came to mind
at the time)

It's a common design principle that anything which has only one
attribute (i.e. its value) is not considered to be a separate entity
but is instead a flat "primitive" attribute of something else.
I'd suggest that (for the sake of simplicity) unless anyone can
demonstrate that a scope has additional attributes of its own, then
why not make scope part of a rule or policy definition?

A nice example of this use of scope was Jon Kyme's example of a
consent schema:


https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01022.html

His suggestion was for scope to be "local", "organisational" or
"global", with regards to how widely it is shared. Is this a
reasonable starting point?

I think we need to work this out better - this is something that needs to be cleared up in the consent framework. Scope may have much more complicated rules than simply "local" or "global" like suggested by John - for example a user might share his policy with his ISP but share only part of it with a spammer (the C/R part). Thus, scope rules would also apply to specific parts of a policy which is where a mechanism like XLinks would come into play which allows a standard mechanism to refer to a part of the policy.

The discussion that followed with Keith Moore was interesting and
dealt with some of the issues to do with how to establish that a
policy is genuine and with priority conflicts between multiple rules.
It's worth a second look.

Definitely.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg