To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <email@example.com>
Cc: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
From: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Our "Privacy Issue"
At 11:44 -0500 3/24/03, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >I'm not convinced that the issue of contention is technical. Then I've failed in my description of the problem. As we sit, EPP requires the registrar to make decisions on whether the submission of a piece of data will be accorded the proper handling with regards to privacy. The issue is that EPP forces the registrar into this posture, there is no choice. What the IESG has asked of us is to make EPP possible to support a scenario in which a registrar gives the data and policy request to the registry and then let the registry decide what to do. Furthermore, a basic framework for this is desired to be part of the base protocol. The IESG is doing this through the role of protocol design engineer review - recognizing functionality that oughta be in a protocol but isn't. >The registry announces a session-policy. Implementors are free >to evaluate the registry-announced policy, and implement local policy, >e.g., accept the policy and propogate policied data, or decline. But the only option available to users of the client is to decide whether or not to make the registration. We want more of an option than that. >To me, it _was_ just distributed read and write access mechanisms to >shared store, with a specific syntax. If someone claims read-on-43 >exhaustively defines "privacy", I don't care. It doesn't exhaustively >define _read_. I don't think anyone is trying to link privacy to what's on port 43 (whois to most of us). The goal isn't to tie privacy to any publication mechanism. This is done with the intent that during the phase of reaching towards DS, we will have more tools for dealing with privacy. Features are more easily removed from PS to DS than added. >Enforcement is a whole different can of worms, unless this is just a >techno-fiction. Enforcement is part of policy and we are making every effort to sidestep it. >Nope. Seems technically flawed to me, and worse than what we had. I don't see how. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer I've had it with world domination. The maintenance fees are too high.