- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:45:58 +0100
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 02:35:50PM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote: > I am hearing arguments against the number, not against the use case. I don't deny the use case, I'm suspecting that it's completely botched up just for the sake of getting that code in. > For me, the case has been defined clearly. I think even if it is used only by > one major site in one country to document censorship, it is worth introducing > it. 15 lines of total description not counting the example seems a bit small for "defined clearly". I *do* really think that if the use case was thought about before the code, it would have ended up with two use cases : - server is not allowed to deliver contents - client is not allowed to receive contents The first case could cover delivering crypto code to countries under some embargoes. The second case could cover delivering adult contents to people considered too young in *their* country. To me it's very clear that these are both perfectly valid yet very different use cases, and that the current draft remains completely vague about them. So my point remains. Let's do the work first and pick whatever code(s) needed next, not the reverse. Willy
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:46:22 UTC