Re: [ietf-provreg] the privacy problem statement

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

I dont think a privacy profile for contact objects only is much useful...

The most prominent example is that a registry might mandate that the Admin
contact Address be displayed while other contacts may have them hidden.  If
a contact is the Admin contact of one domain and a billing contact for
another, and the contact object was created when s/he needed to be an Admin
contact, then s/he will be forced to also disclose his/her address for the
other domains that s/he is associated with.

I think privacy profile for domain mapping is as important... if not more
important

Edmon




----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "'George Michaelson'" <ggm@apnic.net>
Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:38 AM
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] the privacy problem statement


> > > If I remember correctly the feeling of the room in San
> > Francisco was that
> > > this could be limited to the contact mapping.
> >
> > No. I'm less sure we agreed on that. The words I kept hearing
> > were 'social
> > data' but It wasn't explicit that was limited to contact mapping.
> >
> > It might be my misunderstanding of what 'social data' and
> > 'contact mapping'
> > are in this context.
>
> Absent anything that resembles social data (as described in RFC 3375)
> outside the contact mapping, I'm working with a definition of social data
> that only applies to elements present in the contact mapping.
>
> -Scott-
>