To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, ietf-whois@imc.org
From:
George Belotsky <george@register.com>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:18:55 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200101231741.f0NHfUn05975@nic-naa.net>; from brunner@nic-naa.net on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:41:30PM -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
Eric: The notion of "specific details" is no less general than "extensibility". If the "sufficiently specific" material was already known, there would be no need to discuss designing a new protocol. In the absence of such a priori knowledge, it becomes necessary to seek out analogous situations to guide oneself towards the required specifics. These specifics are the desired end result, not the initial starting point. It is possible to make fine distinctions in virtually any case. Experience generally shows, however, that a unifying approach is both simpler and more useful. There is absolutely no need here to reconcile the specifics of privacy and data protection with scope-free universalism. The Whois data is universally accessible, but restricted in scope. In operating systems, for example, there is a huge range of access permissions from the superuser to a minimally privileged user, sometimes even an unauthenticated guest user. Authentication and restricted access are already parts of the requirement document for this protocol. There is no reason why there cannot be a 'guest user' with maximally restricted permissions. George. On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:41:30PM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > George, > > The decisions made now will affect rrp implementors _now_. > > One of the failings of "extensibility" (a token periodically emitted > by bits of the W3C) is its lack of self-description. What is being > extended? A schema? A state machine? An access control mechanism? > > Reference to rockets, and scientists, living or deceased, are not > sufficiently specific. > > Since the specifics of privacy/data protection are fundamentally > scoped (temporally as well as spatially) and hence irreconcillable > with scope- free universalism(s), let alone any other actual property > of a rrp or a whois-successor protocol, please accept my "non-hum" > to the suggestion that A wait on B, etc. > > Eric -- ----------------------------- George Belotsky Senior Software Architect Register.com, inc. george@register.com 212-798-9127 (phone) 212-798-9876 (fax)