Re: [dispatch] Draft on TRIP IANA registry & postal addresses

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 19 July 2018 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D34B131207 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=TjEVRUhO; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=InDjonWu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1da6_uij19t for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B5F1310D1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.148.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w6J0FD1V000269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1531959323; x=1532045723; bh=Ic08iyhzQM21+H8UZxWMev8AFp2++0TZdCJvhi65SkY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TjEVRUhOAKbcEC9ju9XfLp7/VFhivqmpxWbNpmA0/UDhlxKLlVxES5d455ATzeeON xtg7NarIPUBawD4S50vkumct8jTj1LPC5+AKKEaj0wKROXMJYIoy+0kQwcg53dO6JK fc5pFwJgs2O2lezpu3rmaqBI+6+JvU2qslR9/Wp8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1531959323; x=1532045723; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Ic08iyhzQM21+H8UZxWMev8AFp2++0TZdCJvhi65SkY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=InDjonWui6D4uzaj3Ux/B7JdTkUONwuprppEiQHh0gotAmmfq5fGeJfCehmf3y+kE PFEUOgA9uhKLz3xceVOSejenScams5ut7g2mbHFfwC2/t6ngrIhWnWzmeg6rZzDcMa tEmZn1FWFDwRCFnm9MVKugCcaG/f/YwwYSbDEeYc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180718171158.132b4da0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:14:44 -0700
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, dispatch@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN7k=+7RTdygjDX1ZBza7kMsT-=isjORMTXrkqNpJZoZVg@mail.g mail.com>
References: <153192515603.3010.16432802912328612304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <375B94CD-1B80-4A9C-B48F-7ADB7F3EFD87@piuha.net> <CAHBDyN7k=+7RTdygjDX1ZBza7kMsT-=isjORMTXrkqNpJZoZVg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/CBrVj8UH7Cilj9tK1kT0tYdhnp8>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Draft on TRIP IANA registry & postal addresses
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:15:26 -0000

Hi Jari,
At 11:14 AM 18-07-2018, Mary Barnes wrote:
>As an individual, I agree with this 
>proposal.  Including the addresses was a 
>carryover from the telecom world where all the 
>registries required (and still do) postal addresses.

The Introduction Section mentions "privacy 
benefit" with respect to postal addresses.  If I 
understood corectly, the issue is about 
PII.  Should both postal and email addresses be 
considered instead of postal addresses only?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy