- From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:38:47 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, shivankaulsahib@gmail.com
Hi everybody, I agree with the idea of 7725bis. Probably some Security considerations are needed (eg. resolving links to blocking-authorities may disclose the client data, ...) My 2ยข, R. Il giorno mer 11 nov 2020 alle ore 22:44 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto: > > WG participants, > > RFC7725, "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles" has seen some deployment in the ~4 years since its publication, including by some platforms who use it to indicate that various legal demands have been made of them. > > About two years later, we discussed adopting draft-sahib-251-new-protocol-elements. There wasn't substantial interest in the WG, but enough in the broader community for it to be AD-sponsored. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements-03 > > For whatever reason, it never got out of AD-sponsorship, and our current AD has asked what we'd like to do about it. > > Tommy and I believe that if this document is to proceed, it should be in the HTTP WG, not AD-sponsored. We're also inclined to think that if there's support, the best path forward would be to do a (relatively small) 7725bis; besides the issues that draft-sahib attempts to address, there's been some discussion of adjusting wording to make it clear that the status code is also useable when a request is refused for legal reasons in absence of an actual legal demand -- e.g., when the server wishes to serve the response, but believes that some legal obligation prevents them from doing so. > > Please discuss. If there seems to be support, we'll do a formal CfA (incorporating feedback already received). > > Cheers, > > Mark and Tommy
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2020 15:39:13 UTC