- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:11:52 +1100
- To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, hrpc@irtf.org
Hi Stephane, 451 was standardised because we found a plausible use case for automated consumption of the status code, and folks were were interested in implementing. I don't see that here yet. Additionally, there was a general wariness of having a status code for every possible kind of problem that might be encountered; we'd quickly exhaust the status code space if we did so. So, if there is such a use case, we should examine satisfying it with the response body and/or a header first. Cheers, > On 20 Nov 2017, at 10:37 pm, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote: > > We have 451 for "unavailable for legal reasons" but I find > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml> > no code for "Unavailable because we have blocked access to this > malware/phishing/bad site". Since there are many network middleboxes > which do this sort of blocking, would it be a good idea to have a > specific status code? > > The only draft I've found about this specific idea is > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lemon-tls-blocking-alert/>, > but it is TLS-specific. > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 00:12:22 UTC