To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF10E6E8@vsvapostal8>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] Proposed Text for Contact Mapping Disclosure E lements
Yeah, for me. Others? As soon as you get to it, submit the current round of documents. I'll give them a look through before alerting the IESG - just to make sure everything is in place and to give a short breather to the group to look once. (It's not a WG last call - just a sanity check. As I've said before, it's never too late to complain, but we do want documents through the system.) At 10:16 -0400 4/23/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> At 11:32 -0400 4/21/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> >If you're not, you don't. So do I need to add a sentence in >> the <info> >> >description that describes the primacy of authorization? >> >> Given (my) experience with other IETF specs, yeah. > >Looking at the current specs I see that this means that I really need to add >an optional authInfo element to the contact <info> command, too. Here's the >text that I'll suggest we add to the earlier text to address authorization >and in-band disclosure: > >"Client identification features provided by the EPP <login> command and >contact authorization information are used to determine if a client is >authorized to perform contact information query commands. These features >also determine if a client is authorized to receive data in a query response >that is otherwise marked for non-disclosure." > >Does this work? > >-Scott- -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer A compiler-directive person living in an HTML-tagged world.