[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc: "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF10E6CF@vsvapostal8>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Boolean vs. Enumerated



the reason for non-disclosure is not in the IESG requirements as discussed
in SF and I do not believe we need to acknolege why its ns not disclosed in
the protocol.

-rick



On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> > So, from the chair's view, it seems like we have a proposal that is
> > generally accepted plus a modification to placate the outstanding
> > issue.
>
> If that's the case, can we focus on discussing the issue of a boolean flag
> vs. a set of enumerated values and the set of values that Andy listed?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the practical difference between "do not disclose"
> and "do not disclose because this is personal data".  Why does the "because
> this is personal data" matter to the server operator once I have the "do not
> disclose" part?  If there is no difference we're back to two values that are
> essentially boolean.
>
> -Scott-
>


Home | Date list | Subject list