Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

I've raised the editorial bits as <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/102>.

Non-editorial feedback below:


On 4 Oct 2015, at 5:23 am, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 3.  451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>   The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non-
>>   existence of the resource named in the request.  That is to say, it
>>   is possible that if the legal demands were removed, a request for the
>>   resource still might not succeed.
>> ...
> 
> Might be good if we could avoid talking about existence or non-existence of resources.

If you're saying that the language should align with that used for 404, I think that's reasonable:
  http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7231.html#status.404
... however, that isn't terribly well-aligned with the definition of 410:
  http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7231.html#status.410
so I'm not sure it's worth dwelling too closely on this.

> 
>> 4.  Identifying Blocking Entities
>> 
>>   As noted above, when an attempt to access a resource fails with
>>   status 451, the entity blocking access might or might not be the
>>   origin server.  There are a variety of entities in the resource-
>>   access path which could choose to deny access, for example ISPs,
>>   cache providers, and DNS servers.
>> ...
> 
> If the access was blocked on the DNS level, how would the status code work?

Presumably, by directing the client to a server that only returns 451s. 

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/