Re: Last Call: <draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements-01.txt> (New protocol elements for HTTP Status Code 451) to Informational RFC

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrick,

A couple of questions:

On 03/07/2018 15:51, Patrick McManus wrote:
> From an HTTP pov: new response headers, such as the proposed 
> geo-scope-block, would really benefit from a more rigorous syntax than 
> is provided here..  see: sections 2 and 3 of 
> https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants.html#variants 
> <https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants.html#variants> 
> for how a current wg draft does it. Also, its composition of a list of 
> country codes should probably be a MUST as Tim hints.
>
> Tim's concerns resonate with me as questions a WG really should debate 
> and reach rough consensus on rather than this being an AD sponsored 
> doc (especially as its a defacto update of a standards track document 
> by an informational one). I'm not sure which WG - httpbis did not have 
> a critical mass of interest in this in the past.

If not in HTTPBIS, then where? I don't see energy in creating a new WG 
to work on this.

Is it better to publish this document than not publish it at all?

Best Regards,
Alexey
> -Patrick
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:17 AM, The IESG <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
>     consider the
>     following document: - 'New protocol elements for HTTP Status Code 451'
>       <draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements-01.txt> as Informational RFC
>
>     The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>     solicits final
>     comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2018-07-30.
>     Exceptionally, comments may be
>     sent to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> instead. In either
>     case, please retain the beginning of
>     the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
>     Abstract
>
>
>        This draft recommends protocol updates to Hypertext Transfer
>     Protocol
>        (HTTP) status code 451 (defined by RFC7725) based on an examination
>        of how the new status code is being used by parties involved in
>        denial of Internet resources because of legal demands. Also
>     included
>        is an analysis of HTTP 451 from a human rights perspective using
>        guidelines from RFC8280.
>
>        Discussion of this draft is at
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/
>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/>
>        hrpc [1] and
>     https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/statuscode451
>     <https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/statuscode451>
>        [2].
>
>
>
>
>     The file can be obtained via
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements/>
>
>     IESG discussion can be tracked via
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements/ballot/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements/ballot/>
>
>
>     No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>
>
>