Hi Joe,
At 03:12 28-05-2013, Joe Abley wrote:
Note that there's no suggestion that these RRTypes are required by the
CRTC. The example given was for a situation where Interop would have
been beneficial (so that cable resellers have an obvious, stable and
supported way of encoding this kind of information.
Ok.
The opposite actually: cable operators are required to provide access
to subscribers on behalf of third parties in order to promote
competition. There are multiple such cable providers and multiple such
resellers.
Yes.
(TekSavvy is one such reseller of multiple cable companies' access networks.)
Ok.
Feel free to point out the gaps, and/or to suggest text.
I'll give it a try. I suggest talking to the Area Director to see
what's workable.
I would drop Section 6 of the draft as I no longer need a use case to
get an RRTYPE assignment. There is a typo for "RRTPES" in Section
7. I would start Section 9 with "There are privacy concerns ...". I
would replace the third paragraph with:
The user should be provided with a disclosure statement that clearly
mentions:
- How the EUI addresses published in DNS will be used and protected
- What privacy policies are applicable
The disclosure statement is to enable the user to make an informed decision
about whether the disclosure of the information is acceptable considering
local laws and customs.
I would rename Section 9 as "Privacy Considerations". I don't know
what to put in the new Security Considerations section. Maybe
"Publishing EUI addresses in DNS lowers the security of the Internet".
Regards,
-sm