RE: grrp-reqs-06, 11. Security Considerations [3]

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

Indeed, and that's why I suggested a rewording last week to make the intent
more explicit:

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-02/msg00169.html

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@ISI.EDU]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:46 AM
To: shollenbeck@verisign.com
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: grrp-reqs-06, 11. Security Considerations [3]


 Yup. I re-read it.
	I'm concerned that depending on venue, the level of information
	required changes.  DNS baseline vs DNS-TSIG, vs DNS-SIG/KEY
	not counting the goofy CERT rr injections for PGP/SSH key
distribution
	will all change the amount of data that will need to be maintained.



% 
% Bill,
% 
% Have a read of the definitions section ("Thick Registry" specifically),
% where it describes "technical information" as "information needed to
produce
% zone files".
% 
% <Scott/>
% 
% -----Original Message-----
% From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@ISI.EDU]
% Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:27 AM
% To: shollenbeck@verisign.com
% Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
% Subject: Re: grrp-reqs-06, 11. Security Considerations [3]
% 
% 
% % 
% % Eric,
% % 
% % The intention of requirement 11-[3] isn't to document that "a mechanism
% % exists to to distinguish technical from social information", it's
intended
% % to note that disclosure of non-technical information may be subject to
% % restrictions and the protocol needs to provide a way to identify
% information
% % that is subject to disclosure restrictions.  This was added at the
request
% % of Karl Auerbach.
% 
% 	What is the distinction between "technical" and "non-technical"?
% 	Are these definitions immutatble within/between juristictions?
% 	Will they withstand legal review?
% 	In which venues?
% 
% --bill