Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:08:56 -0400

> Scott wrote:
> > Well, that's the proposed text, with appropriate changes 
> required elsewhere
> > in the document to maintain consistency.  Fire away.
> 
> OK. I hope this helps. Of course, hopes and effects are 
> rarely coincident.

It doesn't help me.  Given the amount of time we've spent on this topic over
the last several months, I need specific suggestions that address the text
that I sent to he list earlier this week.

-Scott-

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:17:07 -0400

Scott,

The client-side proposal is not my proposal.

The proponants of client-side should provide the editor text that works.

Eric

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:12:46 -0400

>The proponants of client-side should provide the editor text that works.

As a process point, that has happened.

The words in 
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2003-04/msg00058.html are 
even a melding of comments from various members of the group, they 
are not solely the first offerings of only the editor.  In addition 
to that, Andy proposed a modification once it was more clear what 
your beef was.

So, from the chair's view, it seems like we have a proposal that is 
generally accepted plus a modification to placate the outstanding 
issue.

Insinuating that the text doesn't work, as you do above, is not 
helping anyone at all.  Showing how the text doesn't work *is* 
helpful - if that is done, we can fix it.  We can't fix unhappiness, 
we can fix text.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:52:13 -0400

Ed,

I don't know how to compare one of these:

	<contact:disclose flag=N><t1><t2>...<tn></contact:disclose>

and one of these:

	<greeting>...<dcp><T1><T2>...<TN></dcp></greeting>

If not both can exist at any time, I don't care that I don't know how
to compare little-t thingees and BIG-T thingees.

All Andy's solved is flag is usefully valued in the range {0, 1, 2}. That
gets personal and impersonal data client-side policed distinctly, it does
not make the reconcilliation with the server-side policy any easier.

> helpful - if that is done, we can fix it.  We can't fix unhappiness, 

Can I make it any clearer? I don't know the answer, and my preferred
solution, since this doesn't bother a soul other than myself, is to
treat the client-side stuff as broken by definition, and vastly too
expensive to fix.

Someone that cares can fix it. Or not.

Eric

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:54:06 -0400

> All Andy's solved is flag is usefully valued in the range {0, 1, 2}. That

Oops. That lasted all of ... (15:30:23 -0400) - (17:32:04 -0400), 22 hours,
minus a minute or so. Oh well.

Eric