- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:57:22 +0000
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CAHBU6is4=_WZG=cg7J+5+uzNtdCG-GOHOao_tfp220+w4bkJjg@mail.gmail.com> , Tim Bray writes: >BUT, it would be useful to know where the legal blockage is happening. No argument there, but adding 452 doesn't aid that goal IMO. >As for #2, this feels like a job for an HTTP header, say >'Blocker-for-legal-reasons'. It should take a list value in the case that >there are multiple entities blocking a request, [...] How would that ever happen ? You get 451 back from the first censor who doesn't explore the full chain to see if anybody else are censoring ? Again: Have you asked any actual *censors* if they would be willing to fill out such a header ? -- 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 Tuesday, 25 August 2015 15:57:49 UTC