RE: Question regarding contact:disclose behaviour.

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07018CE547@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:29 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] 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>.

Derivation is easy: the default applies to everything.  What you can't
easily specify are element-by-element distinctions.  I think that's what
you're suggesting, and if so, I agree.

> 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.

I won't disagree, and frankly I'm not that comfortable with any of this
DCP or contact:disclose stuff.  Remember that I, too, questioned the
form when others suggested it was necessary.

-Scott-
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.