Re: action items from our meeting in atlanta

[Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>]

At 05:59 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>In general action items (meaning - the WG needs to do this, except for 
>where someone's name appears):
>
>1. Respond to the IESG comments.
>
>Most of the comments are easily addressed.  A few need further discussion 
>(and are listed as separate action items).

as for 1 it relates in part to 3 and IMHO it is clear we need some IESG 
clarification or statement of direction here on how / if / when to add 
privacy tags to user collected data.

in principal I'm all for this but as a practical matter it could delay the 
existing work and considering how W3C may or may not be going in that 
direction I just do not think its a good idea for IESG to place a 
requirement here

again I'd love to do it really .. I'm open minded, ..but how to do it is a 
general architectural issue that IAB/IESG should provide guidance on.  IMHO 
this is a much larger issue the IETF will have to confront sooner rather 
than later.

given the fluid US OECD and EC policy swamp

Ed , Japp ...my suggestion is a carefully constructed note to upper 
management that there is a problem here...If you want my help in text ... 
privately let me know and I'll be happy to frame the problem statement and 
issues.

I smell sandtraps and ratholes here it took years for W3C to get any 
consensus on the puny little protocol they came up with

provreg IMHO is not the WG for constructing data privacy protocols in XML 
objects

geopriv is struggling with these issues as it is and it is very very rough 
sledding.

honorable work but do we want to go there?


>2. Come to a final understanding of UDP and EPP.
>
>There have been some words posted to the "outlawing" of UDP, one response 
>was to require stream based protocols.

outlaw UDP  .. my vote for what its worth


>3. Clarify the adoption of P3P concepts.
>
>P3P was written for website environments, not a business to business 
>situation.  This is reflected in some of our examples and needs to be 
>cleaned up.
>
>Rick Wesson volunteered to summarize a discussion on privacy issues. It 
>might be up to us to forge new ground here as we are one of the few 
>protocols that gathers personal information (for registration information).

Ok we can tackle this but the if privacy issues are to be a IESG 
requirement I think that calls for charter review and they should make that 
requirement clear.


>4. Whether or not we adopt a work item for the SOAP 'as transport' draft.
>
>A thread has been started on the list, but the results are luke warm for now.

I wont mouth off on this anymore..


>5. An SMTP mapping is all but dead in the water.
>
>Unless someone objects on the mail list, we're dropping all milestones 
>relating to SMTP.

good idea.


>6. Continue to progress on Guidelines.
>
>No sense of urgency, at least not until we get #1 above done.
>
>Two other action items...
>
>7. Clean up the milestones.
>
>After the meeting we talked and decided that the milestones on the web 
>page aren't sufficiently descriptive.  Before fixing them, #4 and #5 need 
>answers.
>
>8. Other items.
>
>Some other items are being brought to the list.  I'd like to clear them up 
>given that we want to complete #1.
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
>ARIN Research Engineer


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard@shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey@neustar.biz>
  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<