RFC7725bis new elements

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 12 November 2020 06:32 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C607D3A147B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:32:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 L6vGMO6GG42c for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 527D33A147A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kd66y-00028r-Sz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 06:29:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 06:29:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kd66y-00028r-Sz@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <tbray@textuality.com>) id 1kd66x-00027d-Sz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 06:29:35 +0000
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <tbray@textuality.com>) id 1kd66w-0003wN-5W for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 06:29:35 +0000
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v20so4792748ljk.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:29:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wakhHtrpn0kNUvmMi+vozUSoCHVUwkNegJklam3yeXo=; b=z1rrU7pc+ODbJfOdP6tQ2+VzyE9jR97RMH58XPJT3uEsxT+KA4BG3F01R1pHl8TEff O1QLmLMKSLN/eLPNGFSRW3u2sS05cVVoB7DCXTg4oNKgyjeEM+eC11dA7lM7s5o//+Vd C+2A0/U+ciTjoCDjIIxNIXygGJXkbYoqDS4lKxnaR/RgW+cN4RCZo/ixC/v22zwjebh4 oJq5WifwlAit/OFMrK+2Sz7xypG86VYUJMgLteYHQ1K8yqjgzDdB10uWgbjqxWVR+QO8 tPZFRbcub5xMNt/atN4TPeYgNNab5zY/BQMZARQeQbydyko5HMCI+wAOzVaZHWRsNJse 3zyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wakhHtrpn0kNUvmMi+vozUSoCHVUwkNegJklam3yeXo=; b=UE9kJfbMQA0e80frxp+A3lg3f/7kbax2nwHfAk5KlYbVEaUgS4OYF1j+Ve3Mghj/et jo7lQyx7mCLHXeVWC7PjiUgfKJ0QY03fQIomkuSy/ZsIoRJs5EU4OtJcJNDNVGlCbqXb Do9vxsLhaf1A7ezESSNSOwD/CRQ8D/zsPP/tzQwh98IdtkpZa2oqWM/p5ZWzq19koroZ /yr9x4+zyo4Dj9iiUXeayoWFXeBfWEVoFskP630/L8ttMyA3gU9VP4RncNZIDuM1YCWm MQZNtuD99++TWiS6V5IHbwmQ0sFOLbUB1OsKsb4zriG8CFFW3htLwQv7zkj/IrLltBrn VzQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kBvk3/rCz6GzlLTFheTGF7oMP3vKrI1ZmR37JkQVPz8s+ixn6 K2M0xhWFPS2eoAJHlHBDGb/JDbUjenRqm6lZH0VWUaItGOM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1C1pXY6O1ssGsNKZ0f1u5aVPMF9XBU3gqiZpBGhG116Qiiy15QdCNf+8Wl88yFqp+dt3BVaAAehLPUYvauwU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b54a:: with SMTP id a10mr11186402ljn.139.1605162562309; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:29:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:29:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it2o0BUkxi_J9qn22MjCrmkdaDzjwetTYm7v6VKkJBLQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005566d305b3e3085d"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::22c; envelope-from=tbray@textuality.com; helo=mail-lj1-x22c.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kd66w-0003wN-5W bc197725b1bdf2bee6100f5c5aa1613b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RFC7725bis new elements
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAHBU6it2o0BUkxi_J9qn22MjCrmkdaDzjwetTYm7v6VKkJBLQA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38205
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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?