I agree. I think that is also what the PSRL spec implies -- the rule engine
imposes an "implicit" property matching for all the rules in the rule module
by CP or Client -- for CP, it is checking the request URL aganst rule module
owner id field (which MUST be a list of domain names that the CP owns); for
client, it is checking the "user-id" field against (again) the rule module
owner id filed.
So basically the rule engine imposes and reinforces the constraints. This
seems like a good solution.
Lily
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajnish Pandey
[mailto:Rajnish(_dot_)Pandey(_at_)india(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:49 AM
To: lily(_dot_)l(_dot_)yang(_at_)intel(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: questions about PSRL
Hi Lily,
It is necessary to make sure that , rule module from one
owner( CP/ End
User) should deal only with its own content .But I don't
see any reason to
define these constraints . What I think is, if rule engine
interacts only with
that part of rule base which is related to the respective
(message / owner)
combination , then constraints come into effect automatically .
Example : Lets assume , an owner ( www.abc.com ) has
given a rule file
which mentions about another owner ( www.cde.com) .Now ,
whenever message(
request / response) related to www.abc.com comes , rule
parser interacts with
rule base , but there will be no rule matching and thus
constraint comes into
effect on its own.
Comments Welcome.
Rajnish..