RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (2)

RFC 7725, "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles", February 2016

Source of RFC: httpbis (art)

Errata ID: 5181
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
Date Reported: 2017-11-11

Section 3 says:

   Link: <https://spqr.example.org/legislatione>; rel="blocked-by"

It should say:

   Link: <https://search.example.net/legal>; rel="blocked-by"


Of course, it is hard to say from just an URL but it seems that the original "blocked-by" mentioned the authority requesting the blocking (spqr = Roman Senate and People) while the text in section 4 says "The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it."

Experience with the 451 crawler during the IETF 99 hackathon showed that several implementors got this wrong and used a "blocked-by" indicating the authority.

[It could be a good idea to have two links, one for the authority and one for the implementor, but this is outside the scope of this errata.]

Errata ID: 5512
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Curt Self
Date Reported: 2018-10-02

Section 3 says:

Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied resource
by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor network.

It should say:

(remove the sentence)


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.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search