Right. I understood what you meant (I think!). But injecting yet another legal term into this discussion is not a good idea. It's also not a good idea for another reason: it sounds condescending if you know what the legal term means.
thanks, Rob On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 1:33 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of the legal definition of "attractive nuisance", and I'm > using it in a metaphorical sense, which I think is appropriate here. > > -Ekr > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 12:22 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >>> Moreover, as the >>> discussion so far shows, trying to draw these distinctions has >>> a high risk of being an attractive nuisance. >>> >> >> I think you mean "high tendency to rathole" (agree). "Attractive >> nuisance" is not that: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine#Conditions >> >> I've heard this one used wrt parsing XML and things like that, but never >> liked it much in that usage. >> >> thanks, >> Rob >> >>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
