[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:12:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:06:02 +0100." <7i2e6vo2jt88gtur2jupb3ok5uf5oc5a8m@4ax.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

CRISP, WHOISFIX, NOT43, ... deal with publication protocols.
DNSOP, DNSSEC, ... also deal with publication protocls.

Generally, they start with some authoritative instance of some datum,
and unconditionally replicate non-authoritative copies of that datum.

The access and persistence properties of these do not subset the
maximums for both generally.


PROVREG and its anticeedents, the DOMREG BoF(s) and the authors
of RRP, ... deal with provisioning protocols. 

Generally, they start with some non-authoritative instance of some
datum, and conditionally allocate an authoritative instance of that
datum.

The access and persistence properties of these subset the maximums
for both generally.

OTHER PUBLICATION PROTOCOLS EXIST.

Bulk copy, with "sale", "lease" and "rent" of mailing lists, postal
and electronic, exists. Some implementations use "sneaker net".

Other technical mechanisms, which exploit properties of domain name
data in particular, the nameserver, technical and administrative
contact, even the character space properties of a domain name (marks,
soundex, Hamming Distrance from, ...) which REPURPOSE data, also exist.

Data provisioned via protocol (RRP, SRS, EPP, ... NEXT) may be merged
with data acquired by other means.

Since the beginning of this Working Group, there have been contributors
who want to "solve" the 954 problem within EPP. This approach does not
solve for other publication mechanisms, nor does it solve for the user
informed portion of the informed consent meta-requirement placed on all
data collectors by 95/46/EC and related texts that address directories,
and related tools for the management of endpoint identifiers which may
identify individual persons.


If the better reading of 95/46/EC et seq. is that it applies to port 43,
and originators need only (may only) make port-specific negative assertions,
then a "publication" framework (yours and others, e.g., the IESG) may be
sufficient.

Having done this twice before, I don't think so. Besides, I don't know
that EPP can't be used for keyword systems, that may not use :43, and
for anything similar.

It would work for the US, and anywhere else where the IAB (the other one,
the Internet Advertising Board) and the DMA (Direct Marketing Association)
and similar trade groups control the "opt-in vs opt-out" policy issue.

I now know it would work in Holland also. I don't understand this, but
the European Data Commissioners I've communicated with over the past three
years are French and German, so I've obviously missed something.

Pointing out a specific defect in the <dcp> element's sub-schema would be
really useful.

Eric

Home | Date list | Subject list