That text was inserted to make a few reviewers happy. Even if it is a bit of a tautology, I've often found that restating the obvious is important when writing specs. As for why this is informational rather than standards track, the simple answer is that it makes no difference. The IANA registry for link relations does not give relations from standards track docs any more weight than relations from informational docs. - James On Oct 15, 2013 7:43 AM, "Edward W. Felten" <felten@cs.princeton.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>wrote: > >> This is a great update on Notice discovery. >> >> I noticed in option 3 RFC - there is a note. >> >> Note that in the absence of clear legal obligations placed on an >> entity, either through contract or law, the presence of a "privacy- >> policy" link does not constitute a legally binding obligation on the >> part of the service. The linked resource can only be interpreted as >> a description of the expected practice. >> >> >> >> I would disagree that there is an absence of clear legal obligation. >> > > Actually, the quoted text seems like a tautology: in the absence of a > legal obligation, there is no legal obligation. It seems better to say > that it is not the role of this document to say what legal obligations, if > any, might apply. >
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 14:50:53 UTC