IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] AD review: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-29

"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Fri, 17 July 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034171A219E for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fRAXPCFzdO0f for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04D321A21C1 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0078664.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.14.7) with SMTP id t6HFpULV026664; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:59:35 -0400
Received: from stntexhc10.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1vq1asgjfv-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:59:35 -0400
Received: from STNTEXMB13.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.3.249]) by stntexhc10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.4.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:59:34 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: [Ecrit] AD review: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-29
Thread-Index: AQHQwKmS0omSWVw7Q0qgCuevcEoN5w==
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:59:34 +0000
Message-ID: <5903491F-5756-4D9A-BD7A-A81C75EF6730@neustar.biz>
References: <99E88B8D-C7E1-4C33-A5FC-45E105D28580@cooperw.in> <p06240600d194f63d737f@[99.111.97.136]> <AA8402BC-217E-4072-94A6-4C9B3BB2A08B@cooperw.in> <p0624060ad1c4cfdd4c23@[99.111.97.136]> <FFE14662-87AD-4970-8E3D-201203305B8D@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <FFE14662-87AD-4970-8E3D-201203305B8D@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.33.192.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <9F8527A993208B419E697ECD6B4C5076@neustar.biz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-07-17_08:2015-07-17,2015-07-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/YZazxkvRTLRjgKX5q_JG81Nwnqw>
Cc: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] AD review: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-29
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:59:39 -0000

>> 
>> The thing about the subscriber privacy indicator is that it's up to 
>> local regulation what elements it covers and what it means.  I don't 
>> think we can dictate that.
> 
> Well, does it have to be in the owner/subscriber block? I thought that implied that it was only relevant to the owner/subscriber data, but if it could be interpreted more broadly then I’m not sure it makes sense to put it in that block.
> 
There are jurisdictions that, for example, would consider the telephone number to be private, and that is not in the owner/subscriber block.  But all of the data in that block is affected by the privacy indicator in all the jurisdictions I’m aware of.  So, I do think it’s in the right place.

Randy’s point was that what it means changes from one jurisdiction to another, so what fields it affects could vary, and which blocks they are a part of will vary.  I don’t think we want to make the mechanism more complex. 

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email