On 2 Jan 2015 07:45, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:07 AM, <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote: >> >> Proposal (another one properly generalized) >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> 451 Forbidden by a third party human authority > > Clever, but it doesn’t meet the service providers’ needs. They are OK with mentioning that they got a legal demand, but they don’t want to admit formally that they have been “forbidden” because that would weaken their legal position if they decide to contest the demand. I'm not sure it is necessary to call out policy or law in the description of this response. 451 Forbidden by intermediary The origin server MAY permit the request but an intermediary server refused the request. ... preferably with a populated via header that ends in the intermediary that forbids the request, or some other identifying information for the intermediary. The implication to be made implicitly or explicitly is that another communication path may not refuse the request. In an office environment this might mean that an employee may seek to access the content at home. The key point intended in the response I think is to differentiate between a request being refused by the owner of the resource or being refused by an owner of the communication path. Stronger language than that could be seen to be offering some kind of legal or policy advice. If the intermediary does want to provide such advice it surely could do so in the response body.
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2015 07:19:51 UTC