- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:22:25 +0200
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, adam@nostrum.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11.11.2017 09:00, Tim Bray wrote: > I think this erratum is probably right, and in the very unlikely event > we were to republish the 451 RFC we should give a little more thought to > the URI in the example. It could be fun to dream up an address for an > ISP of the Roman Empire - perhaps a sketchy Internet cafe in Corinth - > that is actually interposing the block; I know one or two Latin scholars > whom I’m sure would be delighted to make erudite suggestions. There'd be > fun to be had around something like CXXVII.?.?.I but Roman notation had > no zeroes. > > Having said that, it's not 100% obvious that the URI is wrong - perhaps > you are sitting in the Senate’s own Imperial Library, foolishly looking > for radical-chic Judean subversives. The Legionaries are on their way > to get you because you foolishly followed a non-HTTPS link. It’s the > big cats in the Coliseum for you. > ... +1 to set this to either "verified" or, minimally, "held for document update". Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 13:23:08 UTC