To:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
cc:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>, paf@cisco.com, "Ted Hardie" <hardie@qualcomm.com>, "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "Edward Lewis" <edlewis@arin.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, shollenbeck@verisign.com, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:51:33 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:45:56 PST." <E18vnFu-0000ET-00@roam.psg.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] provreg's privacy issue
Randy, and anyone else with a view, > once again, data structures 101 sez that each attribute would have > a privacy tag, as opposed to a blob of tags at the front. In the abstract, there exists at least one type definition hierarchy. At least one hierarchy is non-degenerate, and the "primitive" and "constructed" model of derivation exists. Ignoring everything else, is the IESG's guidance on this subject, that the type definition hierarchies contained in the EPP spec, fundamentally err by reference to a built-in derived type, or to a primitive type? Thanks in advance, Eric