Subject: [ietf-provreg] consensus on privacy

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:48:50 -0400

(I was asked to repost this.)

Just to let the group know, I think we've definitely achieved a 
consensus on privacy.  I will go back over the list and check a few 
things before making a summary - my schedule today has me tied up in 
the early going - but what I will be looking at saying something just 
like the words Scott posted on April 15.  (Maybe just URL to the 
archive.)

As far as enumerated-binary issue, it looks certain that binary is 
the way to go, e.g. no personal v. corporate distinction.  The 
rationale is based on two things - such a distinction is not in the 
requirements as adopted post-SF and the distinction is definitely a 
policy issue.

While I'm proceeding to write up a summary, folks are free (as usual) 
to voice opinions.  But to warn you - to stop me from declaring a 
consensus, it has to be clearly convincing.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I'm sorry, sir, your flight is delayed for maintenance.  We are
pounding out the dents from the last landing."

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:13:45 -0400

> ... and the distinction is definitely a 
> policy issue.

It is a choice to allow, or disallow, mechanisms that distinguish one datum
from another.

Because the operation of such mechanism(s) is an operational issue, hence
one of local policy, it does not follow that the existance, or impossibility
of such mechanism(s), is a policy issue.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:29:28 -0400

As the policy-based distinction differs from one environment to 
another, is it possible and more appropriate to make the distinction 
between personal and corporate in an extension?

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:27:51 -0400

Ed,

As I drove in to work I was thinking about the implementation details,
how one implementation could signal that it was able to toggle between
a boolean type, and another type.

I wrote more, only two paras, honest, but cut it.

If an extension exists, implementors can use it. If it doesn't, then
implementors can find an alternate mechanism, if they choose to.

Eric