Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> >If it isn't too difficult, in which message?
> 
> http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2003-04/msg00069.html
> 
> >Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:25:38 -0400
> >Sounds extentional. I can see some operators putting "business privacy" on
> >the same level as "human privacy", and some not.
> 
> That one.  When you said that, my interpretation was that you see 
> this as a policy issue, not a protocol issue, hence EPP ought not 
> distinguish.

OK. Easy enough mistake.

I want "human privacy", in the client-side <mumble> (modulo I don't want
the client side <mumble>, and I don't think "privacy" should just mean
the recipient, but accepting these defects -- IMHO -- as the consensus of
this WG), as either part of the core, or as an extension.

I want "business privacy" NOT AT ALL, but if it must exist (same modulo
as above), as a DISTINCT part of the core, or as a DISTINCT extension.

I don't want "it". If "it" exists, I want "it" to come in separate units
of syntax (or a three valued type, as Andrew suggested, which has the
same semantic result).

Now the IETF fiat (or mazda) is that <mumble> be in the core. I suppose
this would apply to both "human privacy" and "business privacy", since
their best contribution on the subject is that the two are, or should be,
indistinguishable.

Thanks for the quick turn-around!
Eric