To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <jaap@sidn.nl>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:21:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<200303171634.h2HGYKGL011947@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] thursday's meeting
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > >> Pointing out a specific defect in the <dcp> element's sub-schema would be > >> really useful. > > > > The DCP proposal didn't address how a registrar can tell the registry > > what can be disclosed. I believe it was the <dnd> proposal that did > > allow this fine granularity of disclosure. > > We don't have a negociation mechanism, for anything. > > I don't mind adding one. > > Why is the scope of negociation limited to this however? I suspect because the granularity requetsted is for the registrant not the session, where by one session could do many registrations for many more contacts/registrants. -rick