It used to be there was a "hop count" in usenet groups, from when some
wrangle began, to when it was settled by reference to a somewhat defunct
political group, or at least its very defunct charismatic leader.
If the experience of drafting a protocol to replace Verisign's RRP, in
particular the question of requirements that arise from attempts to
state in machine readable form requirements that are themselves both
scoped geographically and employ differing frameworks, is general, then
this IRTF activity at some point will decide that "everything looks like
a nail".
At that point, the possibility of using meta-data to describe policy,
in particular, the data collection policy of relay-participating MTA
operators, which was present in various drafts on such mechanisms as
the http state management mechanism, http methods, and shared registry
provisioning, to my limited personal knowledge, will no longer be
available, and some simpler, and presumably better mechanism, or policy
needing no complex mechanism, will be the object of "hum".
I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy...
Yes. In a nutshell there are three basic regimes to consider, or ignore:
o the US FTC contract framework,
o the OEDC (Canada, Japan, ...) guidelines, a hybrid
and
o the EU Treaty human rights framework.
But don't take my word for it.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg