|>The XML-CPDL is _somewhat_ agnostic on the application of SCOPE, but
|>fairly definite on it's implementation. I think at the very least we
|>should be sure that SCOPE as defined in the consent framework is not
|>incompatible with the XML-CPDL. We should probably endeavor to make a
|>direct linkage between the two - and where that is not
|possible explain
|>how the two interact.
|
|The languages and protocols for consent should flow out from
|the consent
|framework. This is consistent with the approach taken by the
|IM WG in the IETF.
Since we are here to develop both the framework and languages that
express that framework I have the expectation that there is room for
movement in both. Where that is not the case there is bound to be
conflict since implementation constraints seldom match the more academic
constraints of "a given framework". Some compromise is always present
for practicality sake.
I would hope that since both aspects are present in the work of this
group that any such conflicts could be minimized as a matter of course
resulting in a better overall product - reflected both in the framework,
and the suggested implementations...
_M
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg