Hello,
On 12/26/18 15:32, Gould, James wrote:
> Do others in the working group believe that either the verification process
> of the VSP is in scope based on the current wording of the draft or that a
> consideration section can cover something that is outside the defined scope
> of the draft?
No, I agree that it's way out of scope. Gurshabad's proposed additions
are in my point of view an attempt to address *judicial* issues (ensuring
people's right to privacy, non-discrimination etc.) by adding wording to
a *technical* specification. Lawyers and politicians exist to deal with
such issues; engineers should not be required to waste their time with them.
Plus, even *if* such wording should end up in the draft, it would be
utterly pointless. Looking at the various implementations of EPP and EPP
extensions which are out in the open (especially for country code TLDs),
it's obvious that even the most basic technical requirements (such as
strict XML schema compliance) and MUST regulations are often ignored or
violated by many operators. I'd therefore be surprised if anyone who's
determined to "abuse" the extension for human rights violations would
care much about the proposed additions anyway.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
44227 Dortmund
Deutschland
Dipl.-Informatiker Tel: +49 231 9703-0
Thomas Corte Fax: +49 231 9703-200
Stellvertretender Leiter SIP: thomas.co...@knipp.de
Software-Entwicklung E-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de
Registereintrag:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Geschäftsführer:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
