RE: action items from our meeting in atlanta

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> 1) Allison's wanting us to clarify the 'marketing' thing.  (I'm 
> deeply paraphrasing here - folks should look at the comment as it 
> appears in the archive).

I think I can handle this one in text.  All she really asked for was
clarification.

> 2) Randy's wanting more granularity in contact and 
> <off-hand-it-escapes-me>
> 
> I'm doubtful that an answer saying 'we'll issue guidelines on this in 
> another (future) document' will settle these two items.  We need to 
> address these two directly to "pass."  However, it seems to me that 
> it would be a really good idea to have guidelines for privacy 
> extensions at some point - but I don't think that the promise of this 
> will qualify as a answer.

This is the one I was talking about, but I'm not suggesting guidelines --
I'm talking about a real protocol extension.  You may be right about Randy's
desire, but so far there's been no WG support for the idea of tagging
individual elements as suggested by the IESG.

-Scott-