[Ietf-not43] Suggestions of changes to the requirements docum ent

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:44:53 -0500, you wrote:

>> The IESG froze the progress of the EPP protocol documents to the RFC
>> level because of privacy concerns (the lack of a standard way to
>> express privacy preferences for the registrant).
>
>Not quite true.  The IESG sent back a review comment that the WG has yet=
 to
>reach consensus on.  Once the WG gets its act together, the IESG will =
likely
>approve the documents.  This is very different than the IESG putting a =
stop
>to the effort.

Anyway, it seems to me that given the request by the IESG for proper
privacy addressing in the provisioning protocol, a similar objection
is likely to be raised if this protocol does not do the same. IMHO,
this is one more reason to add some privacy-related provision to the
crisp requirements too.

Moreover, implementing privacy on this side of the system is easier,
because independently from the complexity of the choices and
algorithms that may be applied during provisioning and retrieval to
determine the level of privacy of the value, from the point of view of
answering queries, either the value is private in regard to the
query's authentication level or it is not - so a binary value might be
enough after all.
--=20
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------