W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > April 2003

RE: [ietf-provreg] [BH] P3P and Extensible Provisioning Protocol

From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:25:01 -0500
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304040925.01966.shollenbeck@verisign.com>

I'll add my two cents below to what Ed has already provided.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:20 PM
> To: shollenbeck@verisign.com
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] [BH] P3P and Extensible Provisioning Protocol
> Scott (and the PRP WG),
> I'm chairing a "Beyond HTTP" taskforce of the W3C P3P
> Activity looking to
> other applications and protocols for an understanding of
> their requirements
> for *reusing* P3P. We've noted [2] your use of P3P and I hope
> you wouldn't
> mind giving us some feedback so we can help others in your
> context re-use
> as much as possible of P3P -- mitigating and confusing divergences.
> 1. Did you find anything particularly troublesome with
> adapting P3P to your
> context from a protocol/binding position? (I assume not, you
> just include
> P3P in your XML.) Do you have any scenarios where your XML
> application
> would also be transported over HTTP, which itself could
> conceivable have a
> P3P policy? (Or is this an unlikely scenario?)

The most significant issue that we had to deal with involved an analysis of
the elements from the perspextive of our operational model.  We're not
dealing with web browser users and web servers, so many of the web-specific
features of P3P weren't of interest to us.

Our XML protocol *could* be transported over HTTP, but that's not something
we're currently doing in the provreg WG.  The IETF has had a bit of
heartburn lately about layering protocols on top of HTTP.

> 2. What led you to make the changes to the vocabulary that
> you did? (Some
> terms are removed, some are altered -- we're these casual
> changes or did
> you have significant market/policy tensions in your app context?)

It was all an attempt to tailor the P3P elements to the EPP operating
environment.  We wanted to eliminate elements that weren't needed and
 ensure that those that remained made sense in our operational context.

> 3. Your XML app does use schema, did you give any thought to
> actually using
> elements from the P3P namespace and if so, what discouraged that?

Yes, we did.  See my responses to 1. and 2. above for the rationale.

> 4. Do you have any other feedback that I've missed? <smile/>

Not really.  I found P3P to be a very complete work, it was just contained
more than what we needed.

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 09:25:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:17 UTC