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

[1] http://www.w3.org/P3P/2003/04-beyond-http.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-p3p-spec/2003Mar/0008.html

-- 
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 18:21:02 UTC