Re: [weirds] fyi: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report

[Avri Doria <[e-mail]>]

+1 to both Wendy's and Patrick's comments.

While an issue may be a policy issue, the technical solutions should accommodate a wide range of policy alternatives.

Definitely interested on working on the definition of that framework.

avri


Patrick Vande Walle <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 17/05/12 10:23, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>
>> And I think it's an absurd report, with disproportionate emphasis on
>> WHOIS accuracy and proposed mandates, and insufficient attention to
>> privacy concerns.  Good thing we're not ICANN.
>
>Wendy,
>
>While  I largely concur with your vision of this report, I point out
>that privacy is  mostly a matter of policy, and not standards. Hence,
>the discussion on privacy on this list will be limited.
>
>It is important to make sure that whatever standard this group will
>produce will not prevent the use of an authentication framework with
>different classes of users. 
>
>My personal view is that this group also needs to come up with a clear
>set of mandatory guidelines as to the implementation of such a
>framework. Something that goes beyond simply saying "use HTTP AUTH". 
>Would that be auth-basic, auth-digest, certificate based ?   If Iwere
>to
>write a software client, or a Perl library to query this new system, I
>would expect all queried registries to behave the same way.   If
>registries are left to  implement authentication frameworks whichever
>way they want,  that would be a lost opportunity to remedy the current
>cacophony.
>
>Patrick
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>weirds mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds