Subject: Re: [Simple] Re: [Geopriv] Individuals, hats and spheres

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:42:49 -0400

Facet, in particular, is being used (in the IETF, by John Klensin's 
drafts) in a completely generic way, describing any attribute of a resource.

[email-masked] wrote:

> I did suggest Dimension. Also, how about Facet?
> 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:35:56 +0300

/Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:15 PM
> To: John Schnizlein
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Re: [Geopriv] Individuals, hats and spheres
> 
> 
> I myself am less than happy with the term sphere. "Role" has been 
> suggested and may be less overloaded, however, it doesn't quite work.
> 
> I would say that I play the role of 'father' or 'teacher', but I 
> wouldn't say that I'm in a work role or private role.
> 
> Amateur and professional sociologists may want to step in here...
> 
> John Schnizlein wrote:
> > My impression is that the spherical shape of the earth's geography
> > is an unintended analogy to the "spheres of interest" Henning meant.
> > This might be sufficient reason to change the word, but the concept
> > of many-to-many categories of individuals is important. Allowing
> > watchers in the same category to get my location is the concept.
> > 
> 
> 
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:14:03 -0400

Facet has also been used already as a concept in the publication work 
in SIMPLE, and there it had a related function. It allowed a publisher 
to declare a presence document to be associated to a specific facet, 
and then specify watchers that were associated with the facet. The 
result was that different watchers could get different views of the 
presence data. Thats almost the same thing, but different in that 
"sphere" is saying something about the state of the presentity, and 
then use that to determine which information is distributed to 
different watchers.

Indeed, this begs the question of which approach is the desired 
approach for sphere. If its only use is to define a state which is 
then used to make authorization decisions at the presence server, 
there is no need to have any meaning for the value of sphere at all. I 
could publish a document with:

<sphere>1</sphere>

and have corresponding authorization rules which give out different 
information depending on whether sphere is 1 or 2.

Having enumerated values with defined meanings is useful if the 
information is also published to watchers, and I think that does make 
sense to do that. I frequently set my yahoo status to "working at 
home, call cell" to basically convey my "sphere" and the associated 
contact information for me when I am in that sphere (my cell).

If you add a presence status like this, it also makes sense to add 
corresponding capabilities in the authorization policies, which allow 
you to say "if presence element X has value Y, please do[n't] 
distribute presence element Z". XCAP-auth at the moment has no such 
capability. AS has been pointed out, such a capability would also be 
useful to make decisions based on other elements besides sphere.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com