To:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:08:53 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<E18WN0R-000MKf-00@rip.psg.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: privacy
At 12:40 -0800 1/8/03, Randy Bush wrote: >> Excellent point, I could not agree more ... IMHO all of this goes to the >> much larger issue of privacy policy across all IETF protocols > >nope. to repeat yet again. we are not discussing privacy *policy*. >we are discussing a mechanism by which a wide set of policies may >be implemented. operating system theory 101. What is frustrating to me is that EPP already has a mechanism as you describe - the extensions. Obviously you are asking for something more specific - something that is required in the implementation that is more specific than the dcp element in the base. I have this question. Given the choice between making something an optional part of the base protocol or making it an extension to the base, what criteria would you follow in making the decision. A couple of weeks ago the following message laid out some criteria for another topic: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00036.html -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer