Re: [Drip] PII use (was RE: The DRIP -arch revision 30)

[Stu Card <[e-mail]>]

On the one hand, RFC 9153 is titled DRIP Requirements & Terminology, we both define and use "PII" therein, and we cite it in -arch as the primary source of our terms.

OTOH we admit in RFC 9153 that the term "PII" is used primarily in the US and that other terms are used elsewhere for essentially the same concept.

Also I have never liked the term "PII", as I find its denotation narrower than its connotation and general usage. I used it in RFC 9153 only because I was being driven more by the US FAA (which, when I began that draft, was leading the global charge for RID) than by other CAAs.

I note that:

RFC 6973 uses the term "personal information" once and the term "personal data" 12 times;

the latter term is defined therein in a way similar to "PII";

the latter term appears in the titles of the CoE & OECD docs cited therein;

the latter term is more specifically defined than the former.

So I agree with replacing "PII" by "personal data" in -arch and subsequent DRIP docs. None of these terms are used in -RID, fortunately.

I am viewing the diffs on my phone, making it hard to see. In line 427, I see this replacement is the only change. Is it also the only change in the very long line 633? Assuming so, I support this PR.

While here, I remind you that the other PR, on US specific timing analysis in Section 8.5, requires slight further tweaking of the wording, and editor Shuai has asked me to do it, which I will ASAP (but not on my phone).

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023, 01:36
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Adam Wiethuechter <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Stu Card <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: PII use (was RE: The DRIP -arch revision 30)


Hi Éric, all,



(adding the WG list, fwiw)



I suggest we change it with “personal data” as per RFC6973.



A proposal to address this comment can be seen at: Eric's comment on PII by boucadair · Pull Request #56 · ietf-wg-drip/draft-ietf-drip-arch (github.com)<https://github.com/ietf-wg-drip/draft-ietf-drip-arch/pull/56/files>.



Would that be OK with you? Thanks.



Cheers,

Med



De : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : mercredi 1 mars 2023 16:20
À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc : Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
Objet : The DRIP -arch revision 30



… In the same *USA-only* vein, section 9 is about 'PII', which is a US only term. Can the authors change 'PII' into personal information or any other generic term ?



Let's talk about this at the interim later today,



Regards



-éric



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.