- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:59:23 +0100
- To: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 06/13/2012 08:10 AM, J Ross Nicoll wrote: > 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? Hmmm. My guess would be that the the broader the scope, the more likely this is to be problematic. And I suspect that'd not be a linear relationship, but more like an exponential increase in difficulty getting done with each small increase in scope. Just my guess though. S > > 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 09:59:48 UTC