Subject: Re: [Asrg] Assume perfect knowledge by domain registry provisioners, so what?

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 18:55:31 -0400

>From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
>
> > It's worthwhile to remember that the current majority of spam is not
> > the only kind. ...
>
>Thanks. I've been fixating on the low-cost transients. For the cost-capable
>models (persistent), the "reputable businesses with endpoint identifiers,
>aka personal indentifiers" problem, different treatment.
>
>The P3P Specification Working Group has a "P3P beyond HTTP" task force,
>which cheritably might include disclosure ((via the <access> element), via
>protocols other than HTTP, SOAP, etc., e.g., including SMTP) of how the
>recipient's address was acquired or may be unacquired or corrected, and so
>on. It also has a "Compact policies" task force for which an xml-2-ebnf
>transform is possible. An xml-2-XYZ (aka "developer-readable language")
>wire encoding optimization already exists for HTTP cookies.

Should we be developing proposals in this area as well? Part of our charter 
is developing consent-based communication?

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 19:10:25 -0400

> is developing consent-based communication?

Personally, I don't care about charters. It wasn't in the P3P Spec WG to
put metadata on cookies. Dan Jaye wanted to distinguish between DoubleClick
and Engage, based upon the distinction between deterministic and statistical
"knowledge" about browser users. I took up his draft, fixed some bits, broke
others, implemented it (trusted cookies) in Mozilla, and went back to the
HTTP WG, to Fred and Keith, then the Apps area ADs, Microsoft (which had a
very scary cookie manager in IE5.5 beta), and the P3P WG. The HTTP WG closed,
Fred and Keith declared all 3rd party persistent cookies equally odious (so
long 3rd-party AAA models), but Microsoft and the P3P Spec WG reached some
different conclusions, which in November '00 became P3P compact polices.

So, for models where consent isn't funny, is it technically possible to add
data collection policy metadata to UCE? I think so. I've put them on cookies,
and they are in EPP, so I'm familiar with some of the syntax possibilities,
and some of the semantic possibilities.

Eric