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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 12:20 PM +0200 7/19/15, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>  On Jul 17, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Rosen, Brian <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>
>  Ok. If you could add a sentence to the description to make it clear 
> that the application of the indicator may extend to any of the 
> additional data shared, I think that would help.

Happy to.  I added:

	Because the interpretation of this indicator varies based on 
local regulations, this document cannot describe the exact semantics 
nor indicate which fields are affected (the application of this 
indicator might affect the display of data contained in any of the 
blocks).

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
It is much easier to suggest solutions
when you know nothing about the problem.