2010/9/17 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email protected]>: > Now, section 10 says the following: "A rule matches if all conditions > contained as child elements in the <conditions> element of a rule > evaluate to TRUE." every children defined for a condition element > (identity, validity, sphere and others) define a min-occurs of 0, so > it would also be possible to get an empty conditions element. > > I wouldn't match that rule if any of these two cases, but someone > might think that "the lack of conditions (condition element children) > means that it's true always". Any thoughts on this?
Even if you get a good conclusion for this question, the problem would be: will your xcap server, your SIP presence server and all your SIP clients sharing the same account interpret such empty <conditions> element in the same way? If not, you have a problem (as all the SIMPLE/XCAP implementors) because client-1 couuld render a contact as blocked while client-2 (same AoR) could render the same contact as allowed. The world gets dark when trying to implement an infamous mechanims like pres-rules (RFC4745). Managing rules in a communication protocol should be easy and not this ugly pain. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
