On 10/05/2018 01:14 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----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.
>
We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
because there is only one (potential) implementation. That leads me to
the question: has this actually been implemented in the case of .gov?
Best,
Niels
> Scott
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam
PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
