idnits 2.17.1 draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-05.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 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 (December 16, 2014) is 3381 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4924 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Bray 3 Internet-Draft Textuality 4 Updates: 2616 (if approved) December 16, 2014 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: June 19, 2015 8 An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles 9 draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-05 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 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2015. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 1. Introduction 62 This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status 63 code for use when a server operator has a received a legal demand to 64 deny access to a resource. 66 This status code may be used to provide transparency in circumstances 67 where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This 68 transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end 69 users. 71 [RFC4924] discusses the forces working against transparent operation 72 of the Internet; these clearly include legal interventions to 73 restrict access to content. As that document notes, and as Section 4 74 of [RFC4084] states, such restrictions should be made explicit. 76 Feedback should occur on the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list, 77 although this draft is NOT a work item of the IETF HTTPbis Working 78 Group. 80 2. Requirements 82 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 83 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 84 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 86 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 88 This status code indicates that the server is denying access to the 89 resource as a consequence of a legal demand. 91 The server in question may not be an origin server. This type of 92 legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs 93 and search engines. 95 Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in 96 the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party 97 making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes 98 of person and resource it applies to. For example: 100 HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons 101 Content-Type: text/html 103 104
This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province 108 of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows 109 access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be 110 operated by the People's Front of Judea.
111 112 114 The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non- 115 existence of the resource named in the request. That is to say, it 116 is possible that if the legal demands were removed, a request for the 117 resource still might not succeed. 119 Note that in many cases clients can still access the denied resource 120 by using technical countermeasures such as a VPN or the Tor network. 122 4. Security Considerations 124 4.1. 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons 126 The 451 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use. 127 It is possible that certain legal authorities may wish to avoid 128 transparency, and not only demand the restriction of access to 129 certain resources, but also avoid disclosing that the demand was 130 made. 132 5. IANA Considerations 134 The HTTP Status Codes Registry should be updated with the following 135 entries: 137 o Code: 451 139 o Description: Unavailable for Legal Reasons 141 o Specification: [ this document ] 143 6. Normative References 145 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 146 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 148 [RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet 149 Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, May 2005. 151 [RFC4924] Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet 152 Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007. 154 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 156 Thanks to Terence Eden, who observed that the existing status code 157 403 was not really suitable for this situation, and suggested the 158 creation of a new status code. 160 Thanks also to Ray Bradbury. 162 The author takes all responsibility for errors and omissions. 164 Author's Address 166 Tim Bray 167 Textuality 169 Email: tbray@textuality.com 170 URI: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/