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

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 10:51:29 -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,

> a privacy tag, ...
> ...
> ... it's the privacy semantics which ran aground.

In the abstract, there exists at least two distinct values that an
algorithmic evaluation of a variable may yeild.

Ignoring everything else, is the IESG's guidance on this subject,  
that the set of values for which any algorithmic evaluation of a
privacy tag is exactly two? If it is not exactly two, what is the
exact characterization of the value space?

Thanks in advance,

Home | Date list | Subject list