- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:52:22 +1100
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Speaking personally -- > On 12 Nov 2020, at 5:29 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? My feelings aren't strong on either of these, so I won't give my thoughts for now. However, if we're going to open 7725 up, I think it *might* be interesting to have something that lets the blocker link to some more information about the block -- e.g., a page in the Lumen Database. Might be a new header field, a new link relation, or just saying that an existing link relation could be used for that. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2020 06:52:42 UTC