W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:02:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iv95H=SW7WH5v_BrdbUjHaeXSasRtS=Tsasc9gquaB+Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Itíd have to be in the 4xx not 5xx range; itís not a server error; similar
to 401/403, but distinct.  I actually think this is a good idea; will write
a formal proposal.

-T

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quite honestly, while 403 would probably work just fine, I think a
> dedicated status code in the 5xx range would make for a better approach, if
> only from an informational point of view.
>
> HTTP/1.1 512 Service Blocked
>
> Sends a very clear message and makes the fact that the service is being
> censored, as opposed to merely being technically unavailable, quite clear.
> On Jun 9, 2012 10:09 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> Check out
>> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/1927246/an-http-status-code-for-censorship
>>
>> The thinking about returning 403 when youíre forbidden to follow a link
>> seems sound to me.  This idea is superficially appealing; is it deeply
>> broken in some way thatís not obvious?  -Tim
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 21:03:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 June 2012 21:03:10 GMT