Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] Proposed Text for Contact Mapping Disclosure E lements

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:14:27 -0400

> > A server operator MAY reject
> > any transaction that requests disclosure practices ...
> 
> There is no in-band indicator of error. Why not?

There is -- a 2308 error response would be appropriate.

> "MUST reject" rather than "MAY reject", since "MAY reject" 
> will be translated
> into business English as "MAY silently modify requests."

I'm open to this if others agree.  Silent modification isn't a good
practice.

> > ... that do not conform to
> > the announced data collection policy.
> 
> What if there is no <dcp> (if <dcp> goes back to OPTIONAL)?

I'm not planning to make DCP optional again as part of this next round of
edits.  That's why the text notes it as a core requirement.

> Putting org in is a mistake. People have "privacy", non-people don't.

I tend to disagree for reasons others have mentioned.  Instead of trying to
guess at the elements that I thought would be useful, I thought it best to
make the feature available and let operators and others decide if it's
useful or not.

-Scott-

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:25:38 -0400

2308 is good. The example we have there is sensible. Please consider adding
an additional example covering this case.

> make the feature available and let operators [...] decide

Sounds extentional. I can see some operators putting "business privacy" on
the same level as "human privacy", and some not.

Eric

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:39:41 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> make the feature available and let operators and others decide if it's

I agree entirely.

Edmon