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

Re: Reviving discussion on error code 451

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:27:40 +0100
Message-ID: <3786d3f39b93d724f2c711d707b67dfe.squirrel@arekh.ddns.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC