Subject: RE: action items from our meeting in atlanta

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:53:28 -0500

> 1. Respond to the IESG comments.
> 
> Most of the comments are easily addressed.  A few need further 
> discussion (and are listed as separate action items).

Ed, what do you think about the idea of a WG task to come up with some sort
of a privacy extension?  If the IESG goes for that we can separate the issue
from the rest of the documents (which allows them to progress) while still
dealing with the issue.

There has been some work in the W3C [1] to describe a P3P preference
exchange language.  Maybe there's something there that we could use.

-Scott-

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P-preferences/

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:37:38 -0500

>from the rest of the documents (which allows them to progress) while still

Hmmmm (as opposed to hummmm;) ),

Seems to me that this looks like a promising way to go, but I don't 
know if this will mollify the IESG comments we have to date.  We just 
have two privacy ones and they are slight comments:

1) Allison's wanting us to clarify the 'marketing' thing.  (I'm 
deeply paraphrasing here - folks should look at the comment as it 
appears in the archive).

and

2) Randy's wanting more granularity in contact and <off-hand-it-escapes-me>

I'm doubtful that an answer saying 'we'll issue guidelines on this in 
another (future) document' will settle these two items.  We need to 
address these two directly to "pass."  However, it seems to me that 
it would be a really good idea to have guidelines for privacy 
extensions at some point - but I don't think that the promise of this 
will qualify as a answer.

That's my co-chair answer based on 'process' and not technical content.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer