To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Cc:
edlewis@arin.net
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:40:21 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
privacy
Over the past few weeks the primary concern of the WG has been preparing an answer to the IESG comments. The one sticking point has been the comment to provide privacy information at a more granular level that we now provide. There was a meeting of the IESG members involved, your chairs, and Scott to review the state of the issue last month. The outcome of that phone call was sent by Scott to the list. I've seen responses from just two folks publicly and one privately. I've been hoping for more - and more positive responses. First I want to make it clear that Scott isn't pushing this issue back on to the table because we wants to. This is an issue on which we are getting feedback from the IESG, and they hold sway over our documents, as in they have the final word. They are reasonable folks, but they do hold the final word. I promised Scott that I'd wait until today to let folks that have been out of the office over the past two weeks (plus a day to download all the pending mail) before prompting the group another time to consider this issue. The crux of the issue is, there are situations in which a registrar may wish to alter the default privacy considerations for data when interacting with a registry. Not all registrar-registry environments will need this flexibility, but there is a claim that some exist. (I have no personal, first-hand knowledge of any such environments.) How can we accomodate such environments? That is the basic question. The most recent thread on this begins with: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00100.html Next: Milestones, ROID and other issues... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer