To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date:
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:13:20 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6033700BF@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Re: "private" Element Attribute
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:56:54PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote a message of 27 lines which said: > in the core protocol. I'm not familiar with APPEL; could you provide a > pointer? Eric provided one. To summary, APPEL can be seen as the "export format" of the privacy preferences that you configured in your Web browser. They could be sent to the registry in an EPP flow. Then, the registry will have a detailed (much more detailed than a binary public/private) knowledge of the user's preferences. > My biggest concern in reopening this debate is that we don't get bogged down > again in debates about how one jurisdiction's privacy policy has to be > ingrained in the protocol. I agree but I do not see the connection with P3P which *is* policy-neutral. P3P (and APPEL) is a protocol to *express* privacy policies or requirments, it does not dictate them (unless you think that no language is neutral, which is also true of EPP).