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

Re: New Version Notification for draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:40:41 +1000
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EFFE4F8C-FC66-4AA6-B9AA-6C4273697A2C@mnot.net>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
I wouldn't worry about it too much; AFAICT, the Exchange use case is one where the client and server are tightly coupled anyway, so the worst thing that's going to happen is that an Exchange client is going to interpret some censorship (again, *if* it gets deployed) as a different problem.

Cheers,



On 13/06/2012, at 1:28 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> OK, Lauren Weinstein also agrees with you:  https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/RKMHCtYpaeV
> 
> So I went back and pushed back on my mail expert (guy who does mail/Exchange dev on Android), saying “problem in practice or just in theory?” and he wrote 
> 
> “I agree that in practice it wouldn't likely be an issue.  I guess I'm using an abundance of caution criterion.”
> 
> So maybe 451 is still plausible.  -T
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Julian on this... there is a clear, open
> registration process in place for http status codes, a single vendor
> should not be allowed to hijack status codes from the shared (and
> quite limited) available range. If their stuff gets broken because
> someone follows the legitimate process later, then the fault is on
> them. They should have known better.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-12 18:34, Tim Bray wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaaaaaaand, it turns out MNot was right; I checked with an expert, and
> >> 451 is heavily used for “redirect” in the Msft ecosystem, notably
> >> including HotMail’s hundreds of millions of users.  Consider it “4xx”
> >> (which I would still argue for as opposed to 5xx).  -T
> >> ...
> >
> >
> > Use it anyway. People who mint new status codes and do not register them do
> > not deserve anything else :-)
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 03:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 03:41:22 GMT