W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:30:45 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D1BC42D-A7EA-4BEB-9906-39DF52B712CF@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

I've raised the editorial bits as <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/102>.

Non-editorial feedback below:

On 4 Oct 2015, at 5:23 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote:

>> 3.  451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
>> ...
>>   The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non-
>>   existence of the resource named in the request.  That is to say, it
>>   is possible that if the legal demands were removed, a request for the
>>   resource still might not succeed.
>> ...
> Might be good if we could avoid talking about existence or non-existence of resources.

If you're saying that the language should align with that used for 404, I think that's reasonable:
... however, that isn't terribly well-aligned with the definition of 410:
so I'm not sure it's worth dwelling too closely on this.

>> 4.  Identifying Blocking Entities
>>   As noted above, when an attempt to access a resource fails with
>>   status 451, the entity blocking access might or might not be the
>>   origin server.  There are a variety of entities in the resource-
>>   access path which could choose to deny access, for example ISPs,
>>   cache providers, and DNS servers.
>> ...
> If the access was blocked on the DNS level, how would the status code work?

Presumably, by directing the client to a server that only returns 451s. 


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 00:31:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:39 UTC