idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02.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. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 31, 2015) is 3160 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 19 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 21 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 21 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 22 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4924 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5988 (Obsoleted by RFC 8288) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7234 (Obsoleted by RFC 9111) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 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 Intended status: Standards Track August 31, 2015 5 Expires: March 3, 2016 7 An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles 8 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status 13 code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal 14 demands. 16 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 18 Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group 19 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at [1]. 21 Working Group information can be found at [2] and [3]; source code 22 and issues list for this draft can be found at [4]. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 4. Identifying Blocking Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 can 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 might 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 A 451 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise 129 indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls; see 130 [RFC7234]. 132 4. Identifying Blocking Entities 134 As noted above, when an attempt to access a resource fails with 135 status 451, the entity blocking access might or might not be the 136 origin server. There are a variety of entities in the resource- 137 access path which could choose to deny access, for example ISPs, 138 cache providers, and DNS servers. 140 It is useful, when legal blockages occur, to be able to identify the 141 entities actually implementing the blocking. 143 When an entity blocks access to a resource and returns status 451, it 144 SHOULD include a "Link" HTTP header field [RFC5988] whose value is a 145 URI reference [RFC3986] identifying itself. When used for this 146 purpose, the "Link" header field MUST have a "rel" parameter whose 147 value is "blocked-by". 149 The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually 150 implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it. A human 151 readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate 152 location for discussion of administrative and policy issues. 154 5. Security Considerations 156 5.1. 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons 158 The 451 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use. 159 It is possible that certain legal authorities might wish to avoid 160 transparency, and not only demand the restriction of access to 161 certain resources, but also avoid disclosing that the demand was 162 made. 164 6. IANA Considerations 166 The HTTP Status Codes Registry should be updated with the following 167 entry: 169 o Code: 451 171 o Description: Unavailable for Legal Reasons 173 o Specification: [ this document ] 175 7. Normative References 177 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 178 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 179 RFC2119, March 1997, 180 . 182 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 183 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 184 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 185 . 187 [RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet 188 Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084, 189 May 2005, . 191 [RFC4924] Aboba, B., Ed. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet 192 Transparency", RFC 4924, DOI 10.17487/RFC4924, July 2007, 193 . 195 [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, DOI 10.17487/ 196 RFC5988, October 2010, 197 . 199 [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, 200 Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", 201 RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014, 202 . 204 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 206 Thanks to Terence Eden, who observed that the existing status code 207 403 was not really suitable for this situation, and suggested the 208 creation of a new status code. 210 Thanks also to Ray Bradbury. 212 Author's Address 214 Tim Bray 215 Textuality 217 Email: tbray@textuality.com 218 URI: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/