On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 02:35:50PM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > I am hearing arguments against the number, not against the use case. > > I don't deny the use case, I'm suspecting that it's completely botched > up just for the sake of getting that code in. > Well, there’s a back story going back to 2012, AFAIK it started in this slashdot thread: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/1927246/an-http-status-code-for-censorship. I actually consulted with this WG before doing the first 451 draft. More history here: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2012/06/20/Latin-Scholar-451 The fact that it actually has been deployed here and there around the net, even without the IETF’s blessing, is also evidence that there is a use case. As for the number, if people find the literary reference inappropriate, that’s reasonable, although I have to note that it’s managed to build a little constituency out there. I don’t take the arguments about the evils of a gap in the sequence very seriously, because that horse is already out of the barn; gaps have existed for years. A couple years ago I cooked up a patch to cause Apache httpd to emit some canonical text along with a 451 - if this goes through I guess I should submit that - and was amused by the relevant code I was patching in httpd, which had a snotty comment about anyone who would be stupid enough to leave gaps, right next to the code that worked around the problem.
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 15:42:41 UTC