[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: evaluation: draft-ietf-crisp-requirements

Steve,
I think it was "assigning...types of access to data" that was
meant to cover the authorization (though it does not use the term).
Data tagging for privacy on the distributed data here doesn't really
work--the data which would be tagged _is_ being distributed so adding a tagging mechanism
to say that it is private is either a no-op or meant to imply "don't further
distribute". Since there is no enforcement mechanism, I don't see what
that would add.
Or am I missing your point?
Ted

At 11:58 AM -0400 6/26/03, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <p06001201bb20c6217d42@[129.46.227.161]>, hardie@qualcomm.com writes
:
Steve,

 >	This is meant to be covered by this text:

3.1.4.1 Protocol Requirement

    The protocol MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granularly assigning
    multiple types of access to data according to the policies of the
    operator.  The protocol MUST provide an authentication mechanism and
    MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granting types of access based on
    authentication.

    The protocol MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism that may be
    turned on or off based on the policy of an operator.

	Since these protocol requirements apply only to distributing
information, there is no place in it for the client to express
privacy preferences about the data (indeed, that's likely to be covered
by EPP).

Not very explicit, and authentication isn't the same as authorization.

But what attracted my attention was 3.1.3, which talks about tagging
data.  What I'm asking about is language about privacy-related tags, or
use of tags for privacy purposes.  That was the big hangup with the EPP
document, as I recall.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)