RE: Question regarding contact:disclose behaviour.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:46 AM
> To: Alexander Mayrhofer
> Cc: [email protected]; Andreas Papst
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Question regarding 
> contact:disclose behaviour.
> 
> Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > we're moving towards EPP enabling .at, but there is an open question
> > regarding how "contact:disclose" should work (we are going 
> to use that for
> > hiding certain elements in a legacy whois service). Section 
> 2.9 of RFC3733
> > contains the following example about "contact:disclose":
> > 
>  > [...]
> > 
> > I'd appreciate feedback on how that was originally 
> intended, and would like
> > to see some clarifying text about this in 3733bis...
> > 
> > Additionally, i'd like to hear from implementors about 
> their currently
> > implemented policy regarding this - i think it would be 
> very confusing to
> > clients if server behave differently...
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Alex Mayrhofer
> > nic.at / enum.at
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> an earlier discussion with Scott revealed to me that the 
> current approach does 
> not allow to set the disclosure of one element and the 
> non-disclosure of another 
> element at the same time. Maybe this is the same that puzzled you.

Within the <contact:disclose> element, that is.  The expectation is that
the dcp element specifies the default policy (be it disclose or not),
and <contact:disclose> specifies the exceptions.  It is thus possible,
for example, to specify a non-disclosure policy for postal address info
using the DCP element while allowing disclosure of an email address
using the <contact:disclose> element.

-Scott-