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:
Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:15:20 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6033700C4@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 04:26:22PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > As far as I can tell this doesn't get us to element-level preference > specification unless APPEL-like elements are added to _every_ object > element. That seems unworkable. Yes, it is a difficult issue. We should work at a higher level: when performing a <contact:create>, the user (probably a registrar acting on behalf of a registrant which sent to the registrar a set of preferences) adds *one* APPEL element to the EPP flow (not one to every <contact:something>). The registry then tries to map the preferences expressed in APPEL to its own data schema. More realistic, although a bit ambiguous since EPP-contact-mapping schema may not be the same as the APPEL base schema (actually, it is the P3P base schema).