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, Eric