On 1 May 2018, at 09:28, Philipp Hörist <[email protected]> wrote: > > But even that is not very useful, Laws change all the time. > > At the same time you can write "Follow the local Laws" > > And why would this only concern HTTPUpload, Laws also concern all kind > of data that run over the server. > > Its really not the place of a standard document to remember people to > follow the law.
Which is not what that text is doing. It’s informing an *implementor* that a *deployment* might have this additional requirement that isn’t protocol based, and so while implementing they might want to consider it. /K > > regards > > 2018-05-01 10:24 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <[email protected]>: >> On 1 May 2018, at 09:03, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:20:38 +0200 >>> Jonas Wielicki <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with your stance about deletion. Which is why I made it a >>>> separate PR. >>>> >>>> What do you think about the independent extension to the text I >>>> proposed in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/625 ? >>> >>> While I'm fine with having a separate extension, I'm against the PR >>> itself. I think the behaviour is up to a local policy. We shouldn't make >>> default recommendations based on some local laws (GDPR). Because if we >>> do that, we can easily add "NOT" to all "SHOULD"s, and in this case we >>> will describe the local law of Russia (where it is required to keep all >>> users data for at least 6 months). I would really advise XSF to avoid >>> making political statements. Not to mention that the text brings >>> nothing to the document and only increases its size: it doesn't >>> describe any protocol, it doesn't describe security considerations, it >>> doesn't describe UX, so what does it do? Can we replace the text with >>> "People SHOULD live in peace?" Because the meaning of the statement >>> doesn't change a lot and a reader can easily ignore it. >> >> I largely agree with Evgeny on this. I’m fine with having a single line >> drawing attention to potential requirements (like the "The availability of >> deletion might be a requirement in jurisdictions where users have a right to >> have their data deleted on request.” in the PR), but I don’t think this >> normative language is the right thing to do. >> >> /K >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
