[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

POLICY definitions: your input needed

Frank (and others),

We need some clarity on the Policy specification. The only "specification" I've seen is Doug's earlier message "POLICY in general."

I don't think there's general concensus on what each of the policies means. Since we started working on iTIP, I've talked with many folks in this working group about "policies", and I know we all have slightly different ideas about certain things. For example, exactly what it means for one user to act on behalf of another differs a bit between products.

The choices we have to resolve this, as I see them, are:

  1. We give each policy a name and define precisely what it means with VCARs
  2. We define a set of policy names and allow clients to query for the VCARs that describe what they mean
  3. We remove policies completely
If there's no feedback within a week or two, we'll just remove policies from the draft. We can add them back if/when we get definitions.

-Steve

Doug Royer wrote:

Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Yes, we are in agreement.
>
> - C&S VCAR Policy specification by the CU is in the CAP.

As far as POLICY goes. They are -not- really in CAP yet.

Frank - as you are the one that put 'POLICY' in CAP. Do you think
the VCAR definitions sent out are correct? If not could you please
explain what those POLICYs mean?

If not - I would suggest we remove them from CAP as as they are currently
undefined and it would be impossible to create an interoperable CUA or CS
that knew what to do with them. We could put them back in once they
have been defined.

Any objections?

-Doug

begin:vcard 
n:Mansour;Steve
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Judge, Jury, and Executioner
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Steve Mansour
end:vcard