W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:13:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMA1S9vtMTkuC0eWJLrRhCgwmx1vtU5mY0uPSWuqZd+eiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> The tricky part is that it takes more words to convey this concept than
> the document currently uses. My suggestion would be to replace "legal
> demand" with "demand based on a claim of legal violation" in the
> abstract, section 1, and the first paragraph of section 3, and replace
> all other instances of "legal demand" with "demand." This is a little
> clunky but it's the best idea I could come up with.

‚ÄčI would be very hesitant to use "claim of legal violation", because it
might be read as agreeing that a violation had occurred.  You could alter
this further to clarify that this status code is used when returning the
relevant resource might result in a violation of laws, but I think that's
simply going to make matters worse.  I think the current language will be
understood in context, and it is better to keep than re-wordsmith now..

Just my two cents,

Received on Monday, 14 December 2015 20:14:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC