idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [3], [4], [1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2616, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2616, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-10-16) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (April 25, 2015) is 3283 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 20 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 22 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 22 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 23 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4924 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HTTP Working Group T. Bray 3 Internet-Draft Textuality 4 Updates: 2616 (if approved) April 25, 2015 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: October 27, 2015 8 An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles 9 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-00 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status 14 code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal 15 demands. 17 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 19 Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group 20 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at [1]. 22 Working Group information can be found at [2] and [3]; source code 23 and issues list for this draft can be found at [4]. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2015. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 1. Introduction 70 This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status 71 code for use when a server operator has a received a legal demand to 72 deny access to a resource. 74 This status code may be used to provide transparency in circumstances 75 where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This 76 transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end 77 users. 79 [RFC4924] discusses the forces working against transparent operation 80 of the Internet; these clearly include legal interventions to 81 restrict access to content. As that document notes, and as Section 4 82 of [RFC4084] states, such restrictions should be made explicit. 84 Feedback should occur on the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list. 86 2. Requirements 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 90 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 92 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 94 This status code indicates that the server is denying access to the 95 resource as a consequence of a legal demand. 97 The server in question may not be an origin server. This type of 98 legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs 99 and search engines. 101 Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in 102 the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party 103 making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes 104 of person and resource it applies to. For example: 106 HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 107 Content-Type: text/html 109 110 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 111 112

Unavailable For Legal Reasons

113

This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province 114 of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows 115 access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be 116 operated by the People's Front of Judea.

117 118 120 The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non- 121 existence of the resource named in the request. That is to say, it 122 is possible that if the legal demands were removed, a request for the 123 resource still might not succeed. 125 Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied resource 126 by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor network. 128 4. Security Considerations 130 4.1. 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons 132 The 451 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use. 133 It is possible that certain legal authorities may wish to avoid 134 transparency, and not only demand the restriction of access to 135 certain resources, but also avoid disclosing that the demand was 136 made. 138 5. IANA Considerations 140 The HTTP Status Codes Registry should be updated with the following 141 entries: 143 o Code: 451 144 o Description: Unavailable for Legal Reasons 146 o Specification: [ this document ] 148 6. Normative References 150 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 151 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, 152 . 154 [RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet 155 Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, May 2005, 156 . 158 [RFC4924] Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet 159 Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007, 160 . 162 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 164 Thanks to Terence Eden, who observed that the existing status code 165 403 was not really suitable for this situation, and suggested the 166 creation of a new status code. 168 Thanks also to Ray Bradbury. 170 The author takes all responsibility for errors and omissions. 172 Author's Address 174 Tim Bray 175 Textuality 177 Email: tbray@textuality.com 178 URI: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/