[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7725 (5181)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 11 November 2017 04:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E00D1200C1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:16:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqUEpXK7g7B9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:16:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE9D81200F1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:16:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1eDN3w-0002Pg-8Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:06:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:06:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1eDN3w-0002Pg-8Q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1eDN3m-0002Ow-Ga for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:06:22 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1eDN3j-00018v-D3 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:06:21 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 030DBB81555; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:05:40 -0800 (PST)
To: tbray@textuality.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, mnot@mnot.net, pmcmanus@mozilla.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20171111040540.030DBB81555@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:05:40 -0800
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.928, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1eDN3j-00018v-D3 a304529ed13acf3f018b60878d7fe2c8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7725 (5181)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20171111040540.030DBB81555@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/34753
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7725,
"An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles".

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Technical
Reported by: St├ęphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr>

Section: 3

Original Text
   Link: <https://spqr.example.org/legislatione>; rel="blocked-by"

Corrected Text
   Link: <https://search.example.net/legal>; rel="blocked-by"

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.]

This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

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              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG