Re: Question regarding contact:disclose behaviour.

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>> 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-
> 

Hi Scott,

but the <dcp> element does not have the same granularity as the 
<contact:disclose> element. I don't see how one could derive the default 
disclosure settings of the individual groups from the content of the <dcp>. In 
addition, RFC3730bis says on page 9:

          Policy information MUST be disclosed to provisioning entities,
          though the method of disclosing policy data outside of direct
          protocol interaction is beyond the scope of this specification.

This makes the actual value of the <dcp> contents questionable, except if the 
registry uses multiple policies in parallel and the policy which applies to the 
registrar's connection is determined dynamically -- which is IMHO rather unlikely.

Regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email protected]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0