To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:30:19 -0400
Content-ID:
<11186.1035307819.1@nic-naa.net>
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:56:54 EDT." <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6033700BF@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: "private" Element Attribute
A pointer to APPEL http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P-preferences/ I agree, the novel (and interesting question) is <dcp> scope. I agree, that j19n is generally a registry-private policy problem, best solved by a registry profile. Our problem is a mechanism that allows a specific policy, as the EPP implementors, and eventually the EPP operators, see as prudent. I disagree that a scopeless bivalued semantic is policy neutral, since we can reasonably forsee that this isn't. I'm not inclined to "solve" the IETF's problem with ICANN and whois:43. The right way to do that is to correct the policy-making body that misuses whois, not poision the protocol with binary toggles. Eric