Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7725 (5181)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:22:25 +0200

On 11.11.2017 09:00, Tim Bray wrote:
> I think this erratum is probably right, and in the very unlikely event
> we were to republish the 451 RFC we should give a little more thought to
> the URI in the example.  It could be fun to dream up an address for an
> ISP of the Roman Empire - perhaps a sketchy Internet cafe in Corinth -
> that is actually interposing the block; I know one or two Latin scholars
> whom I’m sure would be delighted to make erudite suggestions. There'd be
> fun to be had around something like CXXVII.?.?.I but Roman notation had
> no zeroes.
>
> Having said that, it's not 100% obvious that the URI is wrong - perhaps
> you are sitting in the Senate’s own Imperial Library, foolishly looking
> for radical-chic Judean subversives.  The Legionaries are on their way
> to get you because you foolishly followed a non-HTTPS link.  It’s the
> big cats in the Coliseum for you.
> ...

+1 to set this to either "verified" or, minimally, "held for document
update".

Best regards, Julian