> -----Original Message----- > From: Niels ten Oever <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 4:20 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; > '[email protected]' > <[email protected]> > Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; > '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' > <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext- > verificationcode > > On 10/04/2018 08:34 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
[snip] > > Here's one example of a regulation that could be met using the > > approach described in the draft: > > > > https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d611d7d4bd8f3155d3262ea4857c > > 011e&mc=true&node=pt41.3.102_6173&rgn=div5 > > > > The draft does not use terms like "obligatory" or "demand". As it says > > in the Introduction, "A locality MAY ...". > > > > If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there > is no need for standardization of this extension? If there is at least one example, there is a demonstration of existence of utility. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
