To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date:
Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:26:29 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200210221350.g9MDovtE010237@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Re: "private" Element Attribute
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:50:57AM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote a message of 68 lines which said: > Please see the discussion of the data collection policy <dcp> element, > in the -07 draft. This stuff got formalized for us around the London > meeting. I was not there and I find nothing in the mailing list archive. <dcp> has exactly the same problem: while it acknowledges the work of the P3P WG, it tries to reinvent P3P, instead of using it. At the cost of great complexity, EPP uses the whole XML zoo, including the ability to add any XML element (not just those specified in EPP) in an EPP element. Why not use <POLICY> and not <dcp>?