Comments on Powerbox

Tyler

I have two thoughts/questions related to  Powerbox.

First, in the spirit of brainstorming, would make sense to associate a  
privacy policy with a given powerbox provider during the registration  
process, enabling notice and transparency,  perhaps including links to  
service policy and log information that could inform user provider  
selection. This could be simple but help with clarifying privacy  
policy associated with the provider. I don't think this would address  
all privacy issues, but could be a part of a solution.

This might require an additional attribute  to provider registration,  
(e.g. a privacyPolicy attribute) or in  a REST approach a specific  
standardized URL variant could  return a privacy policy,  or access to  
a log.

I also have a question. Wouldn't it be more REST-like to use  a GET in  
a provision request with the various parameters as query string  
parameters? Why does the draft use POST instead (due to potential size  
longer than allowed?)

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:56 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote:

> Since the WG will be discussing the Powerbox draft, I'm attaching the
> latest version that reflects feedback received to date. Hopefully this
> will help clarify futher discussion. The mechanism itself has not been
> altered, but there is more explanatory text.
>
> --Tyler
> <Overview.html>

Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 01:31:17 UTC