Subject: Document Status

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:54:11 -0500

Here's where I am in terms of editing the WG documents to address IESG and
recent WG comments:

- All of the IESG comments have been addressed except those that relate to
privacy.  More on that below.

- I'm going with Ed's assessment [1] that we do not have consensus to
include Rick's "lastVerified" suggestion as an optional element.

- I've heard no objections to Janusz' suggested replacement text [2] for the
description of external host processing, so I plan to incorporate his text
changes.

Now for the privacy stuff: I've seen no support for the IESG suggestion to
tag individual elements with a "private" attribute, so we need to come up
with a counter proposal to take back to them.  I see two choices:

1) We again describe how we can define privacy policies via the extension
mechanism.  I already tried this once and the idea wasn't well received.
Or,

2) We make the <dcp> element mandatory and add an element (with dcp-like
child elements) to the command structure that allows the client to opt-out
of the data collection policy elements announced by the server.  I haven't
tried to float this by the IESG so I'd like to know how the WG feels about
the idea.

Thoughts, please.

-Scott-

[1]
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00049.html

[2]
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-11/msg00065.html