I made a quickie cut of draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02 at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/451-02.html The only difference is the new section 4 “Identifying Blocking Entities”, https://www.tbray.org/tmp/451-02.html#rfc.section.4 and a header registration in IANA considerations. I think this is an effective way not only to distinguish intermediaries from origins but to answer the more useful question “who is actually blocking access?” On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > >> >> I do see your point though — if I'm being censored because I'm in >> Fooistan, and the content is available elsewhere, the place of application >> of the censorship (network vs. origin) doesn't >> >> seem like a primary concern (because in both cases, changing my network >> path may result in the content becoming available). >> > > I’m actually more interested in automated agents doing tracking, who > would like to track > (a) which resources are blocked, and > (b) who's blocking > > For humans, the most useful thing is the response-body that can be sent > along with 451. > > >> > I think it's useful to know who is censoring. >> >> If we got ambitious, we could define a Censorship Reporting Format to >> describe who's doing the censorship, what it applies to, etc. and then >> Link: to that from the response. I don't think we're that ambitious here >> (and it's starting to sound out of scope for this WG). >> > > Bah. Use a URI. You’re not going to improve on that any time soon. I > owe the WG draft language. > > -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2015 17:08:16 UTC