RE: "private" Element Attribute

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Eric,

I knew I was going to regret reopening this issue, but the IESG hasn't
bought the "we've been through this and what you see is what we came up
with" argument.

Regarding the domain example I gave, your guess was correct: it could mean
that the registration event itself must remain undisclosed.

> Now Randy's point was different, the scope of some semantic. 
> At present, we
> have a <dcp> in a <greeting>, providing EPP-session scope to 
> whatever sort
> of data collection practices semantic we have. Could we make 
> the granularity
> scope sensibly smaller than EPP-session?

I don't think that would do the trick.  The DCP stuff is in there and has
been for a while, yet Randy still asked the question.  I don't think it
addresses Randy's concern, even if we added additional elements to describe
more narrowly scoped server policies, based on the conversations I've had
with Randy and Patrik over the last few days.  Randy (and now Patrik)
believe that what is missing is a mechanism for a user/registrant/etc. to
flag individual elements that need to be protected in accordance with some
stated policy.  Blanket acceptance of whatever the stated policy might be
doesn't appear to address their concern.

-Scott-