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 17:11:18 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Message from "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> of "Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:26:22 EDT." <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6033700C4@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: "private" Element Attribute
Hmm. IE IIS EPP-C EPP-S or Mz Apache EPP-C EPP-S P3P "native" (before we embraced and extended it) sits ONLY on the IIS and Apache parts of the onward-transport. With our E+O, it now sits between the C and S, but not elsewhere. We could MANDATE transparency between the EPP-S and the instance of IIS-or-Apache so the IE-or-Mz browser could evaluate the EPP-S policy. I think I know how to do that. APPEL "native" (?) sits ONLY on the IE/Mz parts of the onward-transport picture. I'm sure that until I re-read the APPEL spec and talk to Marc that I don't know enough to usefully apply APPEL to reverse direction. What problem are we trying to solve? a. Providing a mechanism for users to announce their preferences? b. Providing a mechanism for collectors to announce their practices? c. Providing a mechanism for the expression of applicable law? d. Providing a mechanism for policy expression which is capable of test, hence enforcement? e. Other I was pretty sure we settled on (c), hence (b), and not on (a). Adding (d) is interesting. Replacing (b), hence (c), with (a) isn't, IMO. I know at least one contributor prefered (a) to (b). Eric