W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Protocol Action: 'An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt)

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:03:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ0VLk_YDTzrdVCrWH+EdHghP5Sf4ordvi-=zc7OcxvXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Virgil Griffith <i@virgil.gr>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Please: for this discussion, remove all addresses except for the
httpbis working group list, as I've done here (and remove mine as
well; I'll see the messages on the working group's mailing list).

Barry, ART AD

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Virgil Griffith <i@virgil.gr> wrote:
> I'd like to revive the discussion of the 5xx equivalent of this, (tentative
> name, error 551) ?
> On my website, onion.link, we use both errors.  We use 451 for cases in
> which the client's jurisdiction forbids the transmission of content (the
> largest case for us is Russia and it's anti-drug laws), but we use 551 for
> cases in which the server's jurisdiction (in our case, USA) forbids the
> transmission of content (usually child abuse).
> I feel this is an important distinction because the implication is that the
> client could can VPN around a 451, while for a 551 no VPN would help.
> -Virgil
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>> The IESG has approved the following document:
>> - 'An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles'
>>   (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt) as Proposed
>> Standard
>> This document is the product of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working
>> Group.
>> The IESG contact persons are Ben Campbell, Barry Leiba and Alissa Cooper.
>> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status/
>> Technical Summary
>> This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code
>> for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal
>> demands.
>> Review and Consensus
>> This document started as an individual draft, which the WG discussed and
>> initially decided to "hold". The primary reason for this was that it
>> wasn't clear if there were use cases that would benefit from a status
>> code (as opposed to just using the body of the response), and whether
>> there was interest in deployment.
>> Over time, this was clarified; both Web sites and consuming software
>> demonstrated interest. Importantly, we heard that having an indicator
>> that an automated client could easily detect would help users like Lumen
>> <https://lumendatabase.org> (formerly, Chilling Effects).
>> As a result (and after discussion both on list and in meetings), we
>> decided to adopt the draft.
>> Technical discussion involved a broad selection of the Working Group.
>> There was some back and forth about what the right scope for the status
>> code's semantics should be (as well as whether we needed more than one),
>> but we were able to achieve consensus on the current document.
>> 451 has already been adopted by some sites on the Web, and based upon
>> discussions (mostly private), it appears that a significantly larger
>> number will adopt it once it becomes standard. On the client side,
>> interest has been expressed by Lumen, Article19, CDT and others.
>> Personnel
>> Mark Nottingham is the document shepherd; Barry Leiba is the responsible
>> Area Director.
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 15:04:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC