RE: [ietf-provreg] Question regarding contact:disclose behaviour.

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de] 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:29 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Question regarding 
> contact:disclose behaviour.
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> >> an earlier discussion with Scott revealed to me that the 
> >> current approach does 
> >> not allow to set the disclosure of one element and the 
> >> non-disclosure of another 
> >> element at the same time. Maybe this is the same that puzzled you.
> > 
> > Within the <contact:disclose> element, that is.  The 
> expectation is that
> > the dcp element specifies the default policy (be it 
> disclose or not),
> > and <contact:disclose> specifies the exceptions.  It is 
> thus possible,
> > for example, to specify a non-disclosure policy for postal 
> address info
> > using the DCP element while allowing disclosure of an email address
> > using the <contact:disclose> element.
> > 
> > -Scott-
> > 
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> but the <dcp> element does not have the same granularity as the 
> <contact:disclose> element. I don't see how one could derive 
> the default 
> disclosure settings of the individual groups from the content 
> of the <dcp>.

Derivation is easy: the default applies to everything.  What you can't
easily specify are element-by-element distinctions.  I think that's what
you're suggesting, and if so, I agree.

> In addition, RFC3730bis says on page 9:
> 
>           Policy information MUST be disclosed to 
> provisioning entities,
>           though the method of disclosing policy data outside 
> of direct
>           protocol interaction is beyond the scope of this 
> specification.
> 
> This makes the actual value of the <dcp> contents 
> questionable, except if the 
> registry uses multiple policies in parallel and the policy 
> which applies to the 
> registrar's connection is determined dynamically -- which is 
> IMHO rather unlikely.

I won't disagree, and frankly I'm not that comfortable with any of this
DCP or contact:disclose stuff.  Remember that I, too, questioned the
form when others suggested it was necessary.

-Scott-