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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:25:58 +1000
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14BCCB69-E88D-4287-B1B6-41045460ED9A@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>

On 14/06/2012, at 9:23 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:

> On 14.06.2012 04:33, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:20:12AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>> If the client retries the request, it might indeed work again -- depending
>>> > on what network path they're using, etc. That's why all of the
>>> > intermediation-focused errors are in 5xx.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Hm?  Surely the expectation would be the opposite; legislative/legal
>>> changes typically have timeframes measured in years or at the quickest
>>> months.   -T
>> 
>> I agree Tim. In my opinion it's just like a "403 forbidden" with a specific
>> reason for this being administratively forbidden.
>> 
>> Willy
> 
> 
> Would these types of differentiation between reasons for rejection be a good case for Warning: codes on a 403 response?
> 
> ie
> Warning: ... Legal Restriction
> Warning: ... Local administrative policy
> Warning: ... Authentication failed too many times. Your account is now closed
> ...
> 
> The body of 403 can as easily contain the legal disclaimer text as any other 4xx code.

So, again -- what's the use case for a machine consuming these? I haven't seen one yet, unless I've missed something.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 00:26:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 June 2012 00:26:38 GMT