idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-03.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 (November 5, 2015) is 3088 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 November 5, 2015 5 Expires: May 8, 2016 7 An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles 8 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-03 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 May 8, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Identifying Blocking Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 received a legal demand to 72 deny access to a resource or to a set of resources which includes the 73 requested resource. 75 This status code can be used to provide transparency in circumstances 76 where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This 77 transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end 78 users. 80 [RFC4924] discusses the forces working against transparent operation 81 of the Internet; these clearly include legal interventions to 82 restrict access to content. As that document notes, and as Section 4 83 of [RFC4084] states, such restrictions should be made explicit. 85 Feedback should occur on the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list. 87 2. Requirements 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 93 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 95 This status code indicates that the server is denying access to the 96 resource as a consequence of a legal demand. 98 The server in question might not be an origin server. This type of 99 legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs 100 and search engines. 102 Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in 103 the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party 104 making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes 105 of person and resource it applies to. For example: 107 HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 108 Link: ; rel="blocked-by" 109 Content-Type: text/html 111 112 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 113 114

Unavailable For Legal Reasons

115

This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province 116 of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows 117 access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be 118 operated by the People's Front of Judea.

119 120 122 The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non- 123 existence of the resource named in the request. That is to say, it 124 is possible that if the legal demands were removed, a request for the 125 resource still might not succeed. 127 Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied resource 128 by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor network. 130 A 451 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise 131 indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls; see 132 [RFC7234]. 134 4. Identifying Blocking Entities 136 As noted above, when an attempt to access a resource fails with 137 status 451, the entity blocking access might or might not be the 138 origin server. There are a variety of entities in the resource- 139 access path which could choose to deny access, for example ISPs, 140 cache providers, and DNS servers. 142 It is useful, when legal blockages occur, to be able to identify the 143 entities actually implementing the blocking. 145 When an entity blocks access to a resource and returns status 451, it 146 SHOULD include a "Link" HTTP header field [RFC5988] whose value is a 147 URI reference [RFC3986] identifying itself. When used for this 148 purpose, the "Link" header field MUST have a "rel" parameter whose 149 value is "blocked-by". 151 The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually 152 implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it. A human 153 readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate 154 location for discussion of administrative and policy issues. 156 5. Security Considerations 158 Clients cannot rely upon the use of the 451 status code. It is 159 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 The Link Relation Type Registry should updated with the following 176 entry: 178 o Relation Name: blocked-by 180 o Description: Identifies the entity blocking access to a resource 181 folllowing on receipt of a legal demand. 183 o Reference: This document 185 7. Normative References 187 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 188 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 189 RFC2119, March 1997, 190 . 192 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 193 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 194 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 195 . 197 [RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet 198 Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084, 199 May 2005, . 201 [RFC4924] Aboba, B., Ed. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet 202 Transparency", RFC 4924, DOI 10.17487/RFC4924, July 2007, 203 . 205 [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, DOI 10.17487/ 206 RFC5988, October 2010, 207 . 209 [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, 210 Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", 211 RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014, 212 . 214 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 216 Thanks to Terence Eden, who observed that the existing status code 217 403 was not really suitable for this situation, and suggested the 218 creation of a new status code. 220 Thanks also to Ray Bradbury. 222 Author's Address 224 Tim Bray 225 Textuality 227 Email: tbray@textuality.com 228 URI: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/