[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
SIMPLE                                                      J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Expires: December 28, 2006                                 June 26, 2006


An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Representation for Expressing Policy
                              Capabilities
                draft-ietf-simple-common-policy-caps-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   An important component of presence and location services is policy.
   Policy systems allow the presentity or location target to grant
   access to specific pieces of information to specific watchers or
   requestors.  These policy systems can be extremely simple, allowing a
   user to accept or block requests based solely on the identity of the
   requestor, to extremely complex, allowing for time based rules that
   grant or deny specific pieces of information.  Policy systems often
   support vendor proprietary features.  To allow for interoperability



Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


   between clients which set such policies, and servers which execute
   them, it is necessary for clients to be able to determine the
   capabilities of the server to which it is connected.  This
   specification defines an Extensible Markup Language (XML) based
   format for expressing such capabilities.


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Overview of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Structure of Policy Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Example Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Usage with XCAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.1.  Application Unique ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.2.  XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.3.  Default Namespace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.4.  MIME Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.5.  Validation Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.6.  Data Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.7.  Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.8.  Resource Interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.9.  Authorization Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  XCAP Application Usage ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.2.  MIME Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.3.  URN Sub-Namespace Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.4.  XML Schema Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14















Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


1.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.


2.  Introduction

   An important component of presence [10] and location services [11] is
   policy.  Policy systems allow the presentity or location target
   (referred to generically as the Presentity Target (PT)) to grant
   access to specific pieces of information to specific watchers or
   requestors (referred to as a WR) [5].  These policy systems can be
   extremely simple, allowing a PT to accept or block requests based
   solely on the identity of the WR, to extremely complex, allowing for
   time based rules that grant or deny specific pieces of information.
   [5] specifies a generic format for representing these policies, using
   the Extensible Markup Language (XML).  These policies consist of
   conditions, actions, and transformations.  That specification defines
   very few actual conditions, actions or transformations.  Rather, it
   leaves such definitions to actual policy systems, such as [12] for
   location services, and [13] for presence services.

   In addition to the conditions, actions and transformations specificed
   in the documents referenced above, policy systems often support
   vendor proprietary features.  It is also anticipated that future
   specifications will be continually developed that add new types of
   policies.  This presents an interoperability challenge.  Clients may
   support policies that are not supported by the servers they are
   using.  This could lead to protocol failures or poor user
   experiences.

   To address this problem, it is necessary for a capability declaration
   system to be put in place.  This specification defines a general
   purpose format for representing policy capabilities within the
   framework established in [5].


3.  Overview of Operation

   This specification defines an XML-based document format that allows a
   server to represent its capabilities.  When a client, acting as an
   agent of a PT, starts up, it obtains this document from its policy
   server.  This specification does not prescribe a singular means of
   transporting such a document between the server and the client.  It
   is anticipated that different systems may use different techniques.



Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


   However, for systems that make use of the XML  Configuration Access
   Protocol (XCAP) [4], Section 7 defines an application usage that
   allows for the transfer of the document using XCAP.

   Once the document has been obtained by the client, it can determine
   which actions, conditions and transformations are understood by the
   server.  This set is matched against those supported by the client.
   Those actions, conditions and transformations supported by the
   client, but not by the server, can be "greyed out" from a user
   interface, for example.

   It is anticipated that the capabilities of the server can change over
   time.  As a result, it is RECOMMENDED that clients obtain a fresh
   copy of the capabilities document each time they start.


4.  Structure of Policy Capabilities

   A policy capabilities document is an XML [6] document that MUST be
   well-formed and SHOULD be valid.  Policy capabilities documents MUST
   be based on XML 1.0 and MUST be encoded using UTF-8.  This
   specification makes use of XML namespaces for identifying policy
   capabilities documents and document fragments.  The namespace URI for
   elements defined for this purpose is a URN [2], using the namespace
   identifier 'ietf' defined by [3] and extended by [7].  This URN is:

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities

   A policy capabilities document is structured much like a policy
   document [5].  The root element is <policy-capabilities>.  This
   element has three children - <conditions>, <actions>, and
   <transformations>.  Each of these contain a list of the condition,
   action, and transformation capabilities, respectively.  Generally
   speaking, each specific condition, action or transformation element
   (referred to as a capability element) is empty, unless it requires
   additional content to further refine the capability.

   This specification defines three capability elements - <identity>,
   <validity>, and <sphere> matching the three conditions defined in
   [5].  Other specifications that define additional policies MUST also
   define matching capability elements.  When such elements are defined,
   that specification MUST indicate, for each capability element, the
   corresponding action, condition, or permission elements which can be
   placed into a common policy document [5].  The name of the capability
   element need not match the name of the corresponding condition,
   action or transformation, although using a matching name is
   RECOMMENDED.




Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


   A server constructing a document to represent its capabilities MUST
   include all of its capabilities, even if those capabilities represent
   mandatory-to-implement features.  However, the server MAY indicate
   differing sets of capabilities to different users.  As such, the set
   of capabilities combines both the ability and the willingness to
   support those capabilities.













































Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


5.  XML Schema


   <xs:schema
    targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities"
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities"
    xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
    elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
    <xs:element name="policy-capabilities">
     <xs:complexType>
      <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element name="conditions" minOccurs="0">
        <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
          <xs:element ref="identity"/>
          <xs:element ref="sphere"/>
          <xs:element ref="validity"/>
          <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
       </xs:element>
       <xs:element name="actions" minOccurs="0">
        <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
          <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
       </xs:element>
       <xs:element name="transformations" minOccurs="0">
        <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
          <xs:any namespace="##any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
       </xs:element>
      </xs:sequence>
     </xs:complexType>
    </xs:element>
    <xs:complexType name="emptyType">
     <xs:complexContent>
      <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"/>
     </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="validity" type="emptyType"/>
    <xs:element name="sphere" type="emptyType"/>
    <xs:element name="identity" type="emptyType"/>
   </xs:schema>




Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


6.  Example Document

   The following document indicates that the identity, validity and
   sphere conditions are supported.  It also indicates that a vendor-
   specific capability, called <happy>, is supported, a vendor specific
   action capability, <log>, is supported, and a vendor-specific
   transformation capability - <min-security> is supported.  The
   specification which defines these capabilities would indicate the
   specific elements which could be included in a policy document.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <policy-capabilities
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities"
    xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities"
    xmlns:vpp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vpp"
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <conditions>
     <identity/>
     <sphere/>
     <validity/>
     <vpp:happy/>
    </conditions>
    <actions>
      <vpp:log/>
    </actions>
    <transformations>
      <vpp:min-security/>
    </transformations>
   </policy-capabilities>


7.  Usage with XCAP

   The following section defines the details necessary for clients to
   read supported permissions documents from a server using XCAP.

7.1.  Application Unique ID

   XCAP requires application usages to define an application unique ID
   (AUID) in either the IETF tree or a vendor tree.  This specification
   defines the "policy-capabilities" AUID within the IETF tree, via the
   IANA registration in Section 9.

7.2.  XML Schema

   The schema is defined in Section 5.




Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


7.3.  Default Namespace

   The default namespace used in evaluating a URI is
   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities.

7.4.  MIME Type

   The MIME type for this document is "application/policy-caps+xml".

7.5.  Validation Constraints

   This specification does not introduce any additional validation
   constraints beyond those defined in the schema.

7.6.  Data Semantics

   Semantics for the document content are provided in Section 4.

7.7.  Naming Conventions

   When a client starts, it can fetch the capabilities of the server in
   one of two places.  If the server capabilities differ on a user by
   user basis, the capabilities for user foo can be found in the
   document with filename "cap.xml" in the user's home directory for
   this application usage.  A client SHOULD check this file first.  If
   this document doesn't exist, the client should next check for the
   system wide permissions by reading the document with filename
   "cap.xml" in the global directory for this application usage.

7.8.  Resource Interdependencies

   Policy capability documents are usually either created automatically
   by the server, or modified by administrator to reflect the features
   of a server.  For those users that have access to the full
   capabilities of the server, a change in the server-wide capabilities,
   expressed in the "cap.xml" file in the global directory, MUST be
   reflected in any "cap.xml" documents in user's home directories.

7.9.  Authorization Policies

   This application usage does not use the default XCAP authorization
   policies.

   A user cannot modify the supported permissions document, they can
   only read it.  Write access is granted only to administrators.

   A user can read the "cap.xml" document in the global directory, but
   cannot modify it.  Write access is granted only to administrators.



Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


8.  Security Considerations

   Policy capability documents reveal capability information about a
   server.  This information can potentially be used by an enterprise to
   determine the features found in competitive products.  However, such
   information could just as easily be obtained through other means, for
   example, by signing up as a legitimate user of the competitive
   service.  Because supported permission documents can vary by user to
   user, they can also reveal information about the grade of service
   offered to a particular user.  However, this information does not
   appear particularly sensitive.  As a result, encryption of these
   documents is not terribly important.

   If an attacker can modify the contents of a supported permission
   document as it passes from client to server, the attacker can remove
   capability elements, therefore reducing the level of service received
   by the client.  This can therefore form a type of denial-of-service
   attack.  As a result, systems which transfer these documents SHOULD
   provide for message integrity.


9.  IANA Considerations

   There are several IANA considerations associated with this
   specification.

9.1.  XCAP Application Usage ID

   This section registers an XCAP Application Unique ID (AUID) according
   to the IANA procedures defined in [4].

      Name of the AUID: policy-capabilities

      Description: Policy capability documents describe the capabilities
      of a policy server to support different conditions, actions, and
      transformations, as defined in [5].

9.2.  MIME Type Registration

   This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
   according to the procedures of RFC 2048 [8] and guidelines in RFC
   3023 [9].

      MIME media type name: application







Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


      MIME subtype name: policy-caps+xml

      Mandatory parameters: none

      Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter application/xml as
      specified in RFC 3023 [9].

      Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of
      application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 [9].

      Security considerations: See Section 10 of RFC 3023 [9] and
      Section 8 of RFC XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace
      XXXX with the RFC number of this specification]].

      Interoperability considerations: none.

      Published specification: RFC XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
      Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification]]

      Applications which use this media type: This document type has
      been used to support capabilities for presence and geolocation.

      Additional Information:

         Magic Number: None

         File Extension: .pcp

         Macintosh file type code: "TEXT"

         Personal and email address for further information: Jonathan
         Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net

         Intended usage: COMMON

         Author/Change controller: The IETF.

9.3.  URN Sub-Namespace Registrations

   This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
   [7]

      URI: The URI for this namespace is
      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities.







Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


      Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, (simple@ietf.org),
      Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen@jdrosen.net).

      XML:


                BEGIN
                <?xml version="1.0"?>
                <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
                          "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
                <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <head>
                  <meta http-equiv="content-type"
                     content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
                  <title>Policy Capabilities Namespace</title>
                </head>
                <body>
                  <h1>Namespace for Policy Capabilities</h1>
                  <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:policy-capabilities</h2>
                  <p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX[[NOTE
   TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number for this
   specification.</a>.</p>
                </body>
                </html>
                END

9.4.  XML Schema Registration

   This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in [7].

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:policy-capabilities

      Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, (simple@ietf.org),
      Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen@jdrosen.net).

      The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content of
      Section 5.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.




Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


   [3]  Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648,
        August 1999.

   [4]  Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
        Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", draft-ietf-simple-xcap-11
        (work in progress), May 2006.

   [5]  Schulzrinne, H., "Common Policy: An XML Document Format for
        Expressing Privacy Preferences",
        draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-10 (work in progress),
        May 2006.

   [6]  Sperberg-McQueen, C., Paoli, J., Maler, E., and T. Bray,
        "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", World
        Wide Web Consortium
        FirstEdition http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006,
        October 2000.

   [7]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
        January 2004.

   [8]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
        Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures",
        BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

   [9]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
        RFC 3023, January 2001.

10.2.  Informative References

   [10]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
         and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [11]  Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
         Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.

   [12]  Schulzrinne, H., "A Document Format for Expressing Privacy
         Preferences for Location  Information",
         draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-08 (work in progress), February 2006.

   [13]  Rosenberg, J., "Presence Authorization Rules",
         draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-07 (work in progress),
         June 2006.








Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


Author's Address

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Cisco Systems
   600 Lanidex Plaza
   Parsippany, NJ  07054
   US

   Phone: +1 973 952-5000
   Email: jdrosen@cisco.com
   URI:   http://www.jdrosen.net








































Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Common Policy Capabilities              June 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Rosenberg               Expires December 28, 2006              [Page 14]