Thank you for your categorization, for it make me more clear about the "privacy issues". But i'm still puzzled about how to define information that SHOULD NOT provide for ALTO servers since the information may be useful for one client but not useful for another. It's like an access-control issues. ALTO protocol needs something to do with this.
2009/12/17 Richard Alimi <[email protected]>: > Hi Enrico, > > On Thursday 17 December 2009 10:20:17 am Enrico Marocco wrote: >> Richard, I like your categorization, I think it would be useful having >> it written somewhere (in the requirements doc?) as a reference for >> future discussions. >> >> On the substance of the matter, I agree that we should introduce >> mechanisms in the protocol to address (1), (2), (3a) and (3b), but >> regarding (3c) don't go any further than stating very clearly that ALTO >> servers SHOULD NOT provide anyone with information they don't want to >> get redistributed. > > Agreed, but it might make senses to instead state something like "The protocol > SHOULD NOT be responsible for preventing unauthorized redistribution of ALTO > information by ALTO Clients." > > I would think its possible for a provider to have some legal agreements > covering redistribution of the ALTO information, but it would be outside of > the scope of the protocol. > > -- > Richard Alimi > Department of Computer Science > Yale University > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 熊淼 Xiong Miao Mobile Life and New Media Lab Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Addr:No.10 XiTuCheng Road Haidian District,Beijing 100876, P.R. China -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
