IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02, example on 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2015 20:51 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872A11A88FC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 9.499
X-Spam-Level: *********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=9.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DRUGS_ANXIETY=0.01, DRUGS_ANXIETY_OBFU=1, FRT_VALIUM1=10.357, FRT_VALIUM2=2.643, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_VALIUM=2.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RS8QC4dfAh1A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DF851A88F9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Zhkmc-0001ga-4b for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:48:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:48:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Zhkmc-0001ga-4b@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1ZhkmZ-0001ft-9Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:48:51 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ted.ietf@gmail.com>) id 1ZhkmX-0001oh-PO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:48:50 +0000
Received: by qkcf65 with SMTP id f65so34814598qkc.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5+yRbJaTnsxa5XFGAlZMWKiA7RI17DzJJgpNG3yt+MQ=; b=MkaTxOSq2V5hZwOXgb0MEnjxCG7IAZSntswBeMd5gbcWuvgQcTitdyzKw5WAy1Bo2w osj1QzGsH8OGgSy6su+sBI6VZX2tKdXZK1PY7Hrq47h6sWhq9MHrbkazBp5OboPJidbC CEOSb3Z3LXigtRIh6ykqq+3Hl2uu64xNhWCgretJNEuFl9P7isM03TCH6Y7EP26bgYkn hmRSEnKLkrGvvTqoGqpzKiHx3sEu5DakCdUG+kQbL7u9/9W3kVa5rAkjUnIlIoPnC2DC pKZLKdHg+cebVcuENzCRbekAS+1fOpmvTeznGu/3cHyrxtKeFJUO6H2hinFoKgQqi96j oLmg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.195.66 with SMTP id a63mr14924243qkj.67.1443732503896; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.50.2 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1Zhi3A-00037O-Gw@maggie.w3.org>
References: <560b5cda.4c11190a.c939.52dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CAHBU6iu2qKpYQ_mwMS8vUoXXM3j_R4PBPGR1thZr5v6Bn5ZKJA@mail.gmail.com> <E1Zhi3A-00037O-Gw@maggie.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:48:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBcprrTShzj2EmxjHXG1FoiLRPpeurQRvdt_UK-t7P45A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Laura Kataja <Laura.Kataja@iki.fi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146675c0baa000521112b32"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.173; envelope-from=ted.ietf@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.480, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DRUGS_ANXIETY=1.483, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1ZhkmX-0001oh-PO 3476acde77f816fffa7189134efbca65
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02, example on 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+9kkMBcprrTShzj2EmxjHXG1FoiLRPpeurQRvdt_UK-t7P45A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30310
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>

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> > Yeah, good catch.  If someone wants to propose a URL for the entity
> > blocking the People’s Front of Judea, I’ll wire that in.
> >
>
> Link: <http://example.com/murus-incendii.html>; rel=blocked-by
>
> (from Laura Kataja)
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
​I think you're aiming for "firewall" rendered in Latin.  You might try
"vallum" (rampart) or "fossa" (moat).  Or, given that the Romans had
censors, "magister morum".

​regards,

Ted​




> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
> >> draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02
> >> August 31, 2015
> >>
> >>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02
> >>
> >> On
> >>
> >> 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
> >>
> >>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02#section-3
> >>
> >> there is an example.
> >>
> >> Next chapter
> >>
> >> 4. Identifying Blocking Entities
> >>
> >>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02#section-4
> >>
> >> introduces "Link" HTTP header field for that.
> >>
> >> Should previous example also include that "Link" header field or is it
> >> too early?
> >>
> >> Otherwise the example do not fulfill that "SHOULD" -requirement.
> >>
> >>
> >> / Kari Hurtta
> >> ( not member of the mailing list)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> > https://keybase.io/timbray)
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email