- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:45:54 -0700
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi>
- Cc: HTTPBIS working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Right, that implementation can be ignored -- it is an application-specific hack defined incorrectly in every respect (wrong class, wrong behavior, wrong dependence on response extension header fields, wrong use of x-*, etc.). ....Roy > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi> wrote: > > > > An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-00 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-00#section-3 > 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons > > > > I do not know that is this dangerous, but someone seems > already use 451 code. > > > 3.1.5.2.2 HTTP Error 451 > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg651019 > > > Perhaps someone may misclassify ActiveSync redirection > as "Unavailable For Legal Reasons". > > Seems that ActiveSync can not misclassify > "Unavailable For Legal Reasons" as redirection > bacause it needs X-MS-Location: header field. > > I noticed that from Wikipedia. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes > > > This is most likely not serius problem. And 451 is not > listed on > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml > > so this is mostly Microsoft's problem. > > > / Kari Hurtta > ( not member of HTTPBIS working group (mailing list) ) > > > >
Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 18:46:25 UTC