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
I'm not sure that scopes more "complicated" / fine-grained than
local | organisational | global
would in fact be useful, but whether scope might be better represented as
an attribute of a "rule" or of the "policy" - this is a good question. I'd
go for per-rule, as I guess that it would make the policy more compact
(given that these scopes "nest" nicely) as you'd avoid duplicating rules
differing only in scope in the differently scoped policies.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg