IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Fri, 06 July 2018 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34943130E6F; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 19:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 vHvwUD59ycYi; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 651351292F1; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id d191-v6so4006410ite.1; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=x4DPKcxCvTEv0wixx1BK73Vxzkv9hF/ePvK5lblSsHM=; b=fw6Sdai1+f/ZoYNepbYJMq9+jF8uj9kSypnCX8gnxgTRxwGpWJ1+wyxj1N9Xxmaq2Z jBkhNYwIV3j+yFMtmwfz3Hk3PHscqThGWpCgzMsnNmJgdpSh0aYSAoDJ/6dZSFdWfYY0 NmkVwHHas0vVWwERz9gsDDnG8z+GWUNqxOngUHK05D0SdwMMN4936WtyLeY8hzMVn0xB I95u6VpPSFzg5q/htZ4jU1cd/nKn2B2Y9nEjCwvivP2ugxH0m6wXye+nfRBGpMPFVeUG 09hPOG4TtRgSgyHob7onk+oVd10Rl/CP4qfrpJ27DWB2CR73ackHQfeec7tdeABMmHnz bKAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x4DPKcxCvTEv0wixx1BK73Vxzkv9hF/ePvK5lblSsHM=; b=j7UbAl4+np2PcDf+RlAiUu5Esv1azhmQA0zTbTJOWKlkCdHGrBEGyeyPgYQy4wP72O Ui0w0buDN+JVv6EOZYSqaSf9Iu64QmoCgX5Q7bW6CAllkPf1OeuOm87KaZ9NqDpfc7rW PpeqyR8Te+Qvp4Kj2Tmm/rcq199678q6NeQqUDNJpGVR1X07p1FpNNn9E62uZfZZFeXk KJPH9r1Nl2I+B24f0e1B0p+DOqtE7xoLp+M21Mk6Dr/1tXyYdlflDHlu5vEC2GVYYh7I kqg07NbZTafmD042XO47fFIXfx7CeKM+iJ7WB7AXOcjtcWRsDM+lS28xe/YyV4yzjgkM 6DOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2FLtgPXdGHO80cO8N5KNWXUlZGQCTh/vy/D9MrUIETCkzMs19I J/L1fiILUFv9s9OCbkxOVNvzYQiuFsDcFA7gRKsXbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeVcmadK6JyFGX7e3cTHTPZjPzMAxOzZF4mE/i9r0ouAW0vBgJBElY0BSb/rxQVVWNdAxxx5GBvWQGKGrQioiw=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:6fd3:: with SMTP id x202-v6mr6910347itb.71.1530845282771; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a6b:a2c7:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9010.1530807105@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <153054106529.16082.5456844530797164969.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBU6iunrrZ6W1hQTWqx7ziEPdDMspt+mf6u0t6DVJn_rS04aQ@mail.gmail.com> <130562.1530665238@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <CAG3f7MjEhq_v==1YDS2piZTG=tOw9RZpjKc3bhpbxTY9j05zRg@mail.gmail.com> <9010.1530807105@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 12:48:02 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TZqBCcETEoXsi0l3o7Vg-Ptj7WM
Message-ID: <CACweHNABdJyR_CKG861aYZhN=1NstYmOodb58p2qJ1a4tgddbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements-01.txt> (New protocol elements for HTTP Status Code 451) to Informational RFC
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Shivan Kaul Sahib <shivankaulsahib@gmail.com>, draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/86EDP3hUhe7DcvdCiqAS2cexI8Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 02:48:06 -0000

On 6 July 2018 at 02:11,  <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 18:24:40 -0700, Shivan Kaul Sahib said:
>
>> The intention of the draft asking for resource identification in the legal
>> demand was *not* to say that the resource has to be named - like I said,
>> the Vatican example was fine.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not my reading of this text:
>
>> "HTTP 451 SHOULD NOT be used by an operator to deny access to a resource on
>> the basis of a legal demand that is not specific to the requested resource.
>
> A legal request to block "anything from East Wombat" isn't specific to the
> requested resource. It may cover that resource, and 38,915 other resources.
>

It still specifies the requested resource.  Is the specificity of the
specification ambiguous?  It's not like it says "...not specific
specifically to the requested resource."

>
> If a news item saying "all people in <insert town you are in> should seek
> immediate shelter from an oncoming tornado", would you call that *specific to
> you* (which it isn't, as it covers every other person in the town as well), or
> merely *applicable* to you?
>

I'd say it's specific to me, and not to my friend the next town over.
I'm not *that* special.

>
> That's why I suggested "not applicable to the requested resource".
>

That seems to resolve an ambiguity that I hadn't seen to be present before this.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email