Question regarding RFC 7725

Curt Self <curtself.cs@gmail.com> Fri, 05 October 2018 21:45 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 BFC62128766 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ZvQnPFem8UMl for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (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 E165D1200D7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1g8XrY-0007LK-J6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:42:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1g8XrY-0007LK-J6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1g8XrX-0007Kf-9u for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:42:19 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1g8XrX-0004A4-40 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:42:19 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1g8Wsa-0002VB-Dc for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 20:39:20 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1g8WsT-0004SM-OP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 20:39:20 +0000
Received: from homard.platy.net ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.38]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1g8Ws4-0007pa-ON for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 20:38:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
From: Curt Self <curtself.cs@gmail.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:03:59 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:38:46 +0200
Resent-To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CADVd7BnBiSJXrfLTBO0Fwkmz-s3+KqMs5gFGM3m8Uzw3Zax+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1g8WsT-0004SM-OP 0833f9b00d0db7f962571005fbd19355
X-caa-id: 12c88c99d4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Question regarding RFC 7725
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CADVd7BnBiSJXrfLTBO0Fwkmz-s3+KqMs5gFGM3m8Uzw3Zax+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35946
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 wanted to provide some feedback about the wording in this RFC. I submitted an Errata, but was told that the change I suggested was Material - not Editorial. I have never worked with the RFC platform, so I apologize for going about it incorrectly. I also realize that the RFC has been reviewed and voted on already. Regardless, here is my feedback.

In Section 3, the last sentence (below) should be removed.
Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied resource
by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor network.

I understand that the status code itself is kind of a joke (Fahrenheit 451), but the sentence above seems to have no place in a technical document. It provides no insight into use cases for either a client or implementing software. When reading other RFCs I have not come across sentences like that one, and it really stands out.

I hope that feedback on Material change is welcome.

Thank you,
Curt Self