Re: Merging RRP and Whois

"James Seng/Personal" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.whois
Message-ID <090501c08620$ea140570$06272dd4@jamessonyvaio>
I am just stating generic privacy concern. I dont have any strong
motivation in either way.

I also understand there are various legistration and policy wrt to this
sort of stuff and it is probably too simple to say to-do-or-not-to-do. I
suppose it will various from different implementation and deployment and
under what justistration.

But I think this is one of the example whereby it is probably bad idea
for engineers to decide. What we need to come up with is a protocol
which can handle either with audit trail or without.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Merging RRP and Whois


> > ... I wouldnt want to leave an audit trail of WHOIS.
>
> James,
>
> Could you please clarify this?
>
> Are you expressing:
>
> a query-originator's preference?
> a query-router's preference?
> a query-responder's preference?
> a queried-datum's preference?
> some other entitie's preference?
>
> Could you motivate/explain the prefernce(s)?
>
> Sent only to ietf-whois, despite the subject line and thread.
>
> TiA,
> Eric
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.