Subject: [Geopriv] Last Call: 'A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:21:02 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG to 
consider the following document:

- 'A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences '
   <draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-04-09.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-08.txt

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:11:43 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Last Call: 'A Document Format for Expressing Privacy 
> Preferences' to Proposed Standard 
> 

A question: the W3C has done some work [Platform for Privacy Preferences
(P3P), 1] to develop a framework for expressing privacy preferences.  I see
no mention of that work in this document.  That doesn't necessarily concern
me, but it does make me wonder if a conscious decision was made to not
re-use the P3P work, or if it wasn't considered because no one knew about
it.  Why was a new way of doing this needed?

-Scott-

[1]
http://www.w3.org/P3P/

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:28:18 -0500

Scott:

this was discussed repeatedly in the working group, so there's  
definitely awareness of this work. It was felt that the P3P work was  
not applicable to our problem, namely the partial delivery and  
modification of XML-structured data and policies for event  
subscriptions.

Henning

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:35:09 -0500

So nothing at all could be reused?  The titles of the work are similar
enough to not make it clear (to me anyway) that your problem domain is
different.

-Scott-

> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:28 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: Last Call: 'A Document Format for 
> Expressing Privacy Preferences' to Proposed Standard 
> 
> Scott:
> 
> > no mention of that work in this document.  That doesn't 
> necessarily  
> > concern
> > re-use the P3P work, or if it wasn't considered because no 
> one knew  
> > about

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:55:50 -0500

The two address rather different areas, despite their similarity in  
name. P3P provides a structured representation of the "privacy  
policy" typically found on web sites. It doesn't express who can  
access which information about me and under what conditions, the  
focus of common-policy.

A very large fraction of P3P is HTTP-specific and tailored to  
commercial web sites, so it is not clear to me how an extension could  
be devised that deserved the word extension that shares more than the  
enclosing XML tag.

Given the design requirements, such as the ability to add and delete  
individual rules in privacy-safe ways (not supported by P3P), nobody  
has proposed a viable mechanism to extend P3P to our needs.

Henning

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:23:10 -0500

OK, good enough.  Thanks for the explanation.

-Scott-

> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:56 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck