To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:42:32 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > >Does ((dnp==1 at .nl) == (dnp==1 at .com)) semantically > > evaluate to 1, or 0? > > > > The answer to this is a determining factor (to me at least) of > > whether $dnp is in the base specification or in an extension. > > As far as .com is concerned, I have no doubt that an extension will be > required even if we were to adopt the IESG's element tagging suggestion. > That being the case, my preference would be to put _all_ of the DNP syntax > and semantics into an extension (where the problem can be addressed as a > whole) while making the existing DCP element mandatory if that resolves the > privacy issue with the IESG. Making existing DCP element mandatory and dealing with other specific privacy requirements within extensions looks to me like a better way of addressing privacy issues in EPP protocol than mandatory, binary DNP attribute. > > > -Scott- Janusz Sienkiewicz