On 6 July 2018 at 02:11, <valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 18:24:40 -0700, Shivan Kaul Sahib said: > >> The intention of the draft asking for resource identification in the legal >> demand was *not* to say that the resource has to be named - like I said, >> the Vatican example was fine. > > Unfortunately, that's not my reading of this text: > >> "HTTP 451 SHOULD NOT be used by an operator to deny access to a resource on >> the basis of a legal demand that is not specific to the requested resource. > > A legal request to block "anything from East Wombat" isn't specific to the > requested resource. It may cover that resource, and 38,915 other resources. > It still specifies the requested resource. Is the specificity of the specification ambiguous? It's not like it says "...not specific specifically to the requested resource." > > If a news item saying "all people in <insert town you are in> should seek > immediate shelter from an oncoming tornado", would you call that *specific to > you* (which it isn't, as it covers every other person in the town as well), or > merely *applicable* to you? > I'd say it's specific to me, and not to my friend the next town over. I'm not *that* special. > > That's why I suggested "not applicable to the requested resource". > That seems to resolve an ambiguity that I hadn't seen to be present before this. Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
