Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

Hi Amos,

I've raised the first issue here as:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/103

What do you (and others) think about Ted's suggestion?

The rest of it looks like editorial suggestions, so I'll leave them for Tim to take on board.


> On 30 Sep 2015, at 2:10 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> On 30/09/2015 4:29 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Everyone,
>> 
>> After talking with the editor and our AD, I think this document is ready to progress; the only remaining action on it is to add the registration template for the new link relation.
>> 
>> So, this is the announcement of WGLC for: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02
>> 
>> Please review the document carefully, and comment on this list.
>> 
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "for use when a server operator has a received a legal demand to deny
> access to a resource"
> 
> This is a lot more restrictive than what I understood was being agreed
> to. This phrasing implies that a specific-URL DMCA type notice is
> required before the status may be used.
> 
> It would be a lot more reasonable to also allow the status to be used
> when a blanket law requirement was levelled on the operator. For example
> schools following laws on porn fitering, or national level restrictions
> on categories of traffic. In cases like these operators dont receive
> per-resource demands, they often receive a one-off notice "law X applies
> to you" and are then expected to censor proactively to the best of their
> ability and face the court on overlooked URLs.
> 
> Probably this can be resolved with s/legal demand/legal requirement/.
> 
> There are other "legal demand" phrase uses elsewhere to keep in sync.
> 
> If "legal demand" is being used with a meaning other than a specific
> warrant DMCA takedown etc. Then that definitely needs to be explained.
> 
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "This transparency s/may be/is/ beneficial"
> 
> How much benefit and in what ways is the questionable part IMHO. Not
> whether there is benefit.
> 
> 
> Section 4:
> "A human readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate
> location for discussion of administrative and policy issues."
> 
> This is specification document, not a discussion one. I suggest
> rephrasing along the lines of:
> 
> "A human readable response body, as defined above, is the appropriate
> location for text regarding administrative and policy issues."
> 
> and/or with a reference to section 3 instead of just "above".
> 
> 
> 
> Amos
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 00:34:27 UTC