To:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
cc:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <iesg@ietf.org>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:35:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<5F3F175C-228F-11D7-B91E-0003934B2128@cisco.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: privacy
Patrik, > What IESG want is _some_ mandatory to implement mechanism which makes > it possible for the registrar to say to the registry "Do not disclose > this attribute to a third party". If the wg want to have the mandatory > to implement mechanism more powerful than that, fine. What is not ok is > the protocol not having any mandatory to implement privacy mechanism in > it, only extensions. The issue that some folks have with and IESG mandatory to implement privacy capability in the prov-reg domain registration context is that addressing privacy just in epp is not a solution. Addressing privacy in epp also requires addressing it in the publishing protocols. privacy is a thick issues and I've not seen/herd one prov-reg participant stand up and say "we understand privacy and here is what should happen" What we do see on the list and in the meetings is that we are not the people who should develop a privacy context and we don't know how to do it. we have asked for additional direction and get a responses that are obtuse and confusing. Everyone appears to agree that privacy is a more complex issue than the IESG is willing to accept and that provreg may not be the place to define such capabilities. I request that you consider that this working group may not be capable of addressing the problem and appreciate your thoughts on the next step if this proves to be true. -rick