- From: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:10:08 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Should this only be for legal restrictions? Do we want to perhaps expand the scope to cover, for example, parents filtering a home Internet connection, or an employer filtering a workplace connection? On 12/06/2012 02:36, Tim Bray wrote: > With apologies to MNot for ignoring his opinion (which I generally > agree with) about not picking particular > status values; but in this case I yielded to temptation. > > rfc2xml output at > http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status.html > > -T > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt > To: tbray@textuality.com > > A new version of I-D, draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Tim Bray and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status > Revision: 00 > Title: A New HTTP Status Code for Legally-restricted Resources > Creation date: 2012-06-11 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 5 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-00 > > > Abstract: > This document specifies an additional Hypertext Transfer Protocol > (HTTP) status code for use when resource access is denied for legal > reasons. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 07:10:37 UTC