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

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

Home | Date list | Subject list