- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:27:40 +0100
- To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "Greg Wilkins" <gregw@intalio.com>, nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>, "Bray Tim" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Niels ten Oever" <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Mer 31 décembre 2014 14:55, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > Hi Greg, Hello > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:06:35PM +0100, Greg Wilkins wrote: >> On 19 December 2014 at 15:07, <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote: >> >> > 451 Forbidden by a third party human authority >> >> >> The suggestion of various names for this code illustrate to me the >> fundamental problem with 451. > I absolutely agree. And your examples above are the perfect illustration > of this. After all, the reasons all start by "Forbidden" which is exactly > 403. No need for an extra code here, let's just normalize a header field > which will give the exact reasons. I think the main differences with 403 (and I tried to make it clear in my proposal) are that : 1. 451 is about *human* restrictions, which may or may not be lifted by human action, and handling them must be done in the human sphere. 2. 451 is a third-party restriction: there's no point complaining to the site operator, he has no power to change it That's why I think the main point of the error code should not be to distinguish between the various human reasons (there is an infinite spectrum of such resons) but on making http tools convey the free-form reason to the humans that can act on them Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 09:28:26 UTC