Subject: [ietf-provreg] [BH] P3P and Extensible Provisioning Protocol

From: Joseph Reagle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:20:21 -0500

Scott (and the PRP WG), 

I'm chairing a "Beyond HTTP" taskforce of the W3C P3P Activity looking to 
other applications and protocols for an understanding of their requirements 
for *reusing* P3P. We've noted [2] your use of P3P and I hope you wouldn't 
mind giving us some feedback so we can help others in your context re-use 
as much as possible of P3P -- mitigating and confusing divergences.

1. Did you find anything particularly troublesome with adapting P3P to your 
context from a protocol/binding position? (I assume not, you just include 
P3P in your XML.) Do you have any scenarios where your XML application 
would also be transported over HTTP, which itself could conceivable have a 
P3P policy? (Or is this an unlikely scenario?)
2. What led you to make the changes to the vocabulary that you did? (Some 
terms are removed, some are altered -- we're these casual changes or did 
you have significant market/policy tensions in your app context?) 
3. Your XML app does use schema, did you give any thought to actually using 
elements from the P3P namespace and if so, what discouraged that?
4. Do you have any other feedback that I've missed? <smile/>

[1] http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/04-beyond-http.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Mar/0008.html

-- 
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:[email-masked]
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:39:53 -0500

I'll add my two cents below to what Ed has already provided.

-Scott- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] [BH] P3P and Extensible Provisioning Protocol 
> 
> 
> Scott (and the PRP WG), 
> 

The most significant issue that we had to deal with involved an analysis of
the elements from the perspextive of our operational model.  We're not
dealing with web browser users and web servers, so many of the web-specific
features of P3P weren't of interest to us.

Our XML protocol *could* be transported over HTTP, but that's not something
we're currently doing in the provreg WG.  The IETF has had a bit of
heartburn lately about layering protocols on top of HTTP.

> you have significant market/policy tensions in your app context?)

It was all an attempt to tailor the P3P elements to the EPP operating
environment.  We wanted to eliminate elements that weren't needed and ensure
that those that remained made sense in our operational context.

> elements from the P3P namespace and if so, what discouraged that?

Yes, we did.  See my responses to 1. and 2. above for the rationale.

> 4. Do you have any other feedback that I've missed? <smile/>

Not really.  I found P3P to be a very complete work, it was just contained
more than what we needed.

-Scott-