- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 06:27:45 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
-------- In message <DB28B14A-5965-4822-8E47-3A91DEF9D87C@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: ><https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/80> >[...] >1. Specify that 451 is for origin server use only; if the network >censors something and is allowed to state that this is happening, it'll >need to use a different (possibly defined in the future) status code. > >2. Specify a second status code (452?) to indicate that the network is >doing the censoring. Defining "the network" in a context like this is nailing gruel to a wall. Is a CDN an origin server or "the network" ? What if some of the CDN nodes must conform to different laws than the rest due to legal reasons relating to $whatever ? Is a web-hosting provider with an Acceptable Use Policy an origin server or "the network" in this context ? More fundamentally, I fail to see where the semantic difference between 451 and 452 would ever matter enough to justify a distinction. And worse: I can see a lot of perverse incentives to use the wrong one to deflect blame, making the distinction useless in practice. I'd prefer we stick with just 451. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 06:29:07 UTC