- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:12:02 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
> On 24 Aug 2015, at 5:07 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > -------- > In message <E46B07E8-79F8-43D8-8AB5-ACA2FBAFB400@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >>> I doubt that would happen in reality, there are big incentives to lie. >>> >>> Leave it at 451 and recommend that the body contains useful details. >> >> It can (and hopefully will) regardless. The discussion here was to see >> whether it'd be useful to make the distinction clear for automated >> clients (e.g., Chilling Effects, robots); the response has been "yes, >> that would be useful." > > I'm sure they would find it useful. > > But only if the censors return 452 to begin with. > > Did anybody ask them if they're going to ? Yeah, that question has come up before, and it's a good one. I suspect there will be some jurisdictions where ISPs and other network providers would use such a status code, because prohibiting them from doing so would be seen as overreaching. I also suspect there would be many jurisdictions where this wouldn't be the case, and it wouldn't be used at all. A good part of the motivation here AIUI is to keep the 451 signal "clean" so that ISP censorship doesn't get confused with origin censorship. That only requires that network providers *don't* use 451, not that they proactively use 452 (or any other technical means). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 07:12:33 UTC