To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:23:33 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200210211756.g9LHurtE005691@nic-naa.net>; from brunner@nic-naa.net on Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:53PM -0400
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>,"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: "private" Element Attribute
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:53PM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> Before we take our first step down this bunny trail we need to know
> if what we are creating a mechanism for is a policy assertion by a
> registrant, or a registry, or some intermediary, AND, if the policy
> can be observed in its instantiation.
It seems to me that the historic goal of the WG has been to be
agnostic about policy; and that whether registrants or registries get
to enforce the policy is itself a policy question. But maybe the
answer (at the expense of yet more complexity) is to do something
analogous to the server*Prohibited/client*Prohibited status values?
I don't really know, and I can't think of any firm proposals right
now; but would that help, in any case, to address the concern?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110