W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: RFC7725bis new elements

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:43:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuujvPkQh5Bxmv0-o2upDmpTGrP_nonQ8LXNE027cOd1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Urgh … unconvinced of the value of the proposed new protocol elements …

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:29 PM Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> I'm unconvinced of the value of the proposed new.
>
> Blocking Authority.
> 1. While it makes sense to identify the Blocking Entity with a URI -
> presumably it has an online presence - the nature of the Blocking Authority
> could be any of multiple levels of government or a trade association or the
> operator of a building complex or almost any other imaginable entity. I
> think that this is best described in textual human-readable form so as to
> be actually useful to the party whose access is being blocked. 7725 already
> provides a place to put this information and illustrates it with an
> (admittedly whimsical) example.
> 2. I haven't seen much in the way of evidence to suggest that this would
> be adopted if it were specified. Maybe I just missed it?
>
> Geographical Scope of Block
> 1. I don't think country codes are going to do it, given that this could
> be done at the regional or municipal level, or the scope might be expressed
> by geofencing.
> 2. Same as before - what evidence do we have that this would be adopted
> were it provided?
>
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2020 06:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 12 November 2020 06:43:38 UTC