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

Larry Masinter <> Wed, 18 July 2018 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043C91311B8 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a7B6HLsEBvYs for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8CF131048 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j26-v6so2766407pfi.10 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=tuxR8gAaDZ+g8NLJoacqYEbCnkwcrpDrjwUb1KZsUDo=; b=dDj0AGsCKqOoMIuJWdIpTXBszcmPO48mPMckz55+bDW2c0u2FpqWTsb7hiX3BU89s/ g+FwgM2RrQuzujsCGSwGVUMkoPLXz29uwKZ0zr1YT8S+1MHiBMOdv3hCygsnY+KGpLdm uUpn5R7xgGJgEMdoKV7nkIGFRIK1AGaApQ0ZBXaIBiwRe2wpmL3huMANSeO26nQimS0G vSocoq2tAmPNHRCZhenmB5H3aB6tSBwqdJSMBKKRFm1EcEj9S6yqkYi/SrIy7afOeJYQ 8xALjn1gAFZr9udhefkAO9uRGOsfI3KaLyEIGcRWBUaGVLjrR2INrysvh+AHe6jdv9lI kXVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=tuxR8gAaDZ+g8NLJoacqYEbCnkwcrpDrjwUb1KZsUDo=; b=Y+KKjSBfJ6TAhSoQEbDLPe6LhFDntARWM7RdChEtJHB8HhKLC9jVnR8HPsfINNdGqa aPZFyeciuoncM4BY4u9xV/HnjsLcYHakzNbXXrFRO1Y6wOsBuNm2J/JLA2Jd51ktXBmA sp85kTNSbV1xRSqOtB7Sqv5nF2lXkBuKlhYfpFNvxyjMrwLW6WmH/fMpEJbc3ZvHDfJk 8zfSdeDp0zWeh6+ingiZEpEpHaiTtgOIOYOF7fRBKpDPz1k+L0apAE56Qd8mYbDq/3Vs YZJLl5j8OnR58blBJKQZq4/Kjt/iLGGbokolrsaQiUh4dFvC2csY5VfgwPg8dzVWDfyy /cHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlH1lzKzjbim5+kOFV+y+0E0aO35+tKChcHhALLxUbedt9PqDq0i cDpIujqiYOKxRzYHCOxHdZz/OL6i
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdJWIQpkd4JEylWlSI4mIg9wUZdBxEWTg22ID9s6guelMCpXV/wOU8tW19XA9+inxS7oK4LZA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:24c:: with SMTP id 73-v6mr7427229pgc.252.1531947948309; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i20-v6sm8282096pfj.82.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <>
From: Larry Masinter <>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: 'Cullen Jennings' <>, 'Jari Arkko' <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:05:45 -0700
Message-ID: <000001d41edb$18f7ef80$4ae7ce80$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHUHqcbuSLltaTUjEa1eYTOxLn5paSVGLSAgAAgIcA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Draft on TRIP IANA registry & postal addresses
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:05:53 -0000

Postal addresses should be part of "information about the organization that will administer the ITAD" (RFC 3219 Section 13.5).  What is the privacy benefit for such an organization to not reveal its postal address, if it has one?

TRIP Attributes requires a Specification ("RFC or equivalent"), which have authors, who often provide a postal address in their contact info. So what is the privacy benefit for those registering the type?

In general, you have to trade off privacy vs. security and robustness of process. For example, the successful use of "NOTE WELL" notices rather than explicit consortia-membership agreements depends to some degree on the ability to connect a posting to a registry to an individual who agrees to be bound by the terms in NOTE WELL. (Otherwise, what's the point?)

Why is address useful? Hard to make up new ones, and gives a clue about jurisdiction of the contributor.

To those reviewing IETF RFCs for unneeded use of addresses: consider this in your evaluation of postal or physical address privacy issues.