Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response

[Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>]

> Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>:
> > But, I don't think we should do that.  We can specify protocol
> > mechanisms and even header fields as containers, but why not let the
> > legislators and the ftc do their labels themselves?  After all,
> > Korea or the EU or Bangladesh may very well have different labels.
> > I'd much specify a mechanism and let policy people make policy.
> 
> As I said in private mail, if that's what you want you should write
> the draft that way.  The way it's worded now it looks like you're pushing the
> MAPS-UBE definition, which is flawed in part 3.
> -- 

I think the draft is written that way: the registry holds labels and
people (e.g., the FTC) can register a label.  Users then choose which
flags to assert.

As an example, you could register your 3 keywords and a definition.

I'll try to make this point clearer.

Carl

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg