Re: [451] #80: Distinguishing intermediaries from origins

--------
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