draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-03.txt 
HTTP Working Group T. Bray HTTP Working Group T. Bray
Internet-Draft Textuality Internet-Draft Textuality
Intended status: Standards Track August 31, 2015 Intended status: Standards Track November 5, 2015
Expires: March 3, 2016 Expires: May 8, 2016
An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02 draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status
code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal
demands. demands.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Identifying Blocking Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Identifying Blocking Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status
code for use when a server operator has a received a legal demand to code for use when a server operator has received a legal demand to
deny access to a resource. deny access to a resource or to a set of resources which includes the
requested resource.
This status code can be used to provide transparency in circumstances This status code can be used to provide transparency in circumstances
where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This
transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end
users. users.
[RFC4924] discusses the forces working against transparent operation [RFC4924] discusses the forces working against transparent operation
of the Internet; these clearly include legal interventions to of the Internet; these clearly include legal interventions to
restrict access to content. As that document notes, and as Section 4 restrict access to content. As that document notes, and as Section 4
of [RFC4084] states, such restrictions should be made explicit. of [RFC4084] states, such restrictions should be made explicit.
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 20
The server in question might not be an origin server. This type of The server in question might not be an origin server. This type of
legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs legal demand typically most directly affects the operations of ISPs
and search engines. and search engines.
Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in
the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party the response body, of the details of the legal demand: the party
making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes making it, the applicable legislation or regulation, and what classes
of person and resource it applies to. For example: of person and resource it applies to. For example:
HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
Link: <https://spqr.example.org/legislatione>; rel="blocked-by"
Content-Type: text/html Content-Type: text/html
<html> <html>
<head><title>Unavailable For Legal Reasons</title></head> <head><title>Unavailable For Legal Reasons</title></head>
<body> <body>
<h1>Unavailable For Legal Reasons</h1> <h1>Unavailable For Legal Reasons</h1>
<p>This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province <p>This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province
of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows
access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be
operated by the People's Front of Judea.</p> operated by the People's Front of Judea.</p>
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
purpose, the "Link" header field MUST have a "rel" parameter whose purpose, the "Link" header field MUST have a "rel" parameter whose
value is "blocked-by". value is "blocked-by".
The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually The intent is that the header be used to identify the entity actually
implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it. A human implementing blockage, not any other entity mandating it. A human
readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate
location for discussion of administrative and policy issues. location for discussion of administrative and policy issues.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
5.1. 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons Clients cannot rely upon the use of the 451 status code. It is
possible that certain legal authorities might wish to avoid
The 451 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use.
It is possible that certain legal authorities might wish to avoid
transparency, and not only demand the restriction of access to transparency, and not only demand the restriction of access to
certain resources, but also avoid disclosing that the demand was certain resources, but also avoid disclosing that the demand was
made. made.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The HTTP Status Codes Registry should be updated with the following The HTTP Status Codes Registry should be updated with the following
entry: entry:
o Code: 451 o Code: 451
o Description: Unavailable for Legal Reasons o Description: Unavailable for Legal Reasons
o Specification: [ this document ] o Specification: [ this document ]
The Link Relation Type Registry should updated with the following
entry:
o Relation Name: blocked-by
o Description: Identifies the entity blocking access to a resource
folllowing on receipt of a legal demand.
o Reference: This document
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 22 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/