- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 00:27:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr, tbray@textuality.com
- Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC7725, "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5181 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr> Date Reported: 2017-11-11 Held by: Francesca Palombini (IESG) Section: 3 Original Text ------------- Link: <https://spqr.example.org/legislatione>; rel="blocked-by" Corrected Text -------------- Link: <https://search.example.net/legal>; rel="blocked-by" Notes ----- Of course, it is hard to say from just an URL but it seems that the original "blocked-by" mentioned the authority requesting the blocking (spqr = Roman Senate and People) while the text in section 4 says "The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it." Experience with the 451 crawler during the IETF 99 hackathon showed that several implementors got this wrong and used a "blocked-by" indicating the authority. [It could be a good idea to have two links, one for the authority and one for the implementor, but this is outside the scope of this errata.] -------------------------------------- RFC7725 (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04) -------------------------------------- Title : An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles Publication Date : February 2016 Author(s) : T. Bray Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : HTTP Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 08:27:47 UTC