[Ietf-calsify] Event class

Cyrus Daboo daboo at isamet.com
Wed Aug 25 16:16:54 PDT 2004

Hi Nathaniel,

--On Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:21 PM -0400 Nathaniel Borenstein 
<nsb at guppylake.com> wrote:

> Cameron's valiant attempt to define the PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL divide made
> me wonder if we aren't trying to standardize the snowflake.  The
> definitions of such categories (and the number of categories needed)
> could be as unique as our users.
> Or to put it another way, defining a tripartite value of
> PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL/PUBLIC is ultimately just a [lame] attempt to
> provide access control.  A pointer towards an access list (and a
> default/fallback semantics of PUBLIC) might be both simpler and more
> useful.  -- Nathaniel

One choice here might be to remove all concept of access control from the 
data model (iCal) and instead only have that in the access protocol. That 
avoids the need to invent properties to express arbitrary access control 
and trust relationships which cannot be rigorously enforced.

Cyrus Daboo

More information about the Ietf-calsify mailing list