To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, jaap@sidn.nl
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:26:30 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<200303252211.h2PMBRGL068597@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Our "Privacy Issue"
At 17:11 -0500 3/25/03, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >> Apparently you >> are not happy with requiring the protocol let the client include >> privacy meta-data to achieve the goal of allowing enforcement to >> happen at the server. > >Actually, I don't even know what "enforcement" means. > >How is "enforcement" meaningfully defined in the protocol? In this case, "makes a decision on whether to send some data in a message." We see the need to make decisions at either the registry or registrar. >> Apparently you >> are not happy with requiring the protocol let the client include >> privacy meta-data > >But it isn't that simple, is it? If it were, then just sourcing the <dcp> >from the client, and sinking it at the server, would suffice. But that >isn't it. Part of the problem statement was that we wanted to piecemeal the privacy metadata to a finer scope. Do you think that that is a bad idea? >No that is interesting. A functional requirement with no semantics. >A mechanism with no discernable effect. Now that is worth the price of >admission. Yes, that is part of the role of being a proposed standard. We have to gain operational experience that may find that parts of the protocol are useless or a needed to be expanded - as well as the circumstances of the documents. I have heard rumors that in some business dealings swirling around the work done here, there is a need for a "standard." To some that's an RFC, to others PR, to others DS, and so yet some others Full Standard or even STD-n. As a chair, I can't deal with what others call a "standard" all I can deal with is what's in the process documents. > >> >Is the new semantic capable of test by any in-protocol means? >> >> Well, we want to be able to set, check, change and define the meaning >> of absence. > >Sounds like an abstract, post-creat, access provisioning protocol, for >shared, multi-reader repositories. > >Not the same as getting the data past creat, or mod, or ... Fortunately, this time I got lost at the end of the message. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer I've had it with world domination. The maintenance fees are too high.