RE: [registrars] [Ietf-not43] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01.txt (fwd)

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>]

Rick,

What are your personal comments to this draft?


My comments from having followed CRISP from the sideline:

 1. As an individual, I am in particular concerned with privacy issues,
therefore welcoming the provisioning of authentication, access levels, and
distinction of priveledged/non-priveledged data. (3.1.4 - 3.1.9)

I do worry about the ability of law enforcement to gain unlimited access to
priveledged records through authentication distribution. 
I am, therefore, happy to see that authentication distribution is optional,
even though I know that this is a policy issue which will be pushed on to
DOC/ICANN/Registry operator for a descision.


 2. As a registrar, I welcome standards and schemas for expressing data
elements. (3.1.3)


 3. Do I support CRISP as detailed in this draft? Yes.


 4. Do I think that the bulk of registrars are ready to implement anything
close to the requirements of CRISP? No, not at all. 


Regards,
Nikolaj 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
> Sent: 10. oktober 2002 21:54
> To: Registrars List
> Subject: [registrars] [Ietf-not43] Working Group Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01.txt (fwd)
> 
> 
> 
> Please review the document below
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-requireme
> nts-01.txt
> 
> If registrars ignore this important document there will little to cry
> about when ICANN requires you to implement the protocol and 
> service CRISP
> requests.
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ted Hardie <Ted.Hardie@nominum.com>
> To: ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> Subject: [Ietf-not43] Working Group Last Call:
>     draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01.txt
> 
> Folks,
> 	I'd like collect any working group last call comments on
> draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01.txt (this is the version posted on
> October 3rd).  As you'll remember from our milestones, we committed to
> sending this up for review in October.  If you could review the draft
> and send comments to the list as soon as possible, but no later than
> October 25th, I'd appreciate it.
> 	Assuming that no major new issues come up which need
> face-to-face discussion on the requirements, I'd like to focus the
> agenda in Atlanta on the mechanisms for evaluating the candidate
> proposals and preliminary division of work for producing the
> evaluation.  As a starting point for discussion, I'm thinking we
> should produce an evaluation document for use during the process.
> While this might not be a formal work item, it can give structure to
> the evaluation as we go through it.  While not as detailed as the
> following, I am thinking in terms of the protocol evaluation being
> done by MIDCOM:
> 
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-05.txt

	Last call thoughts on requirements and discussion of
evaluation methodology appreciated,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43