An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: "IETF-Announce" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "The IESG" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles' (draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ben Campbell, Barry Leiba and Alissa Cooper. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status/
Technical Summary This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal demands. Review and Consensus This document started as an individual draft, which the WG discussed and initially decided to "hold". The primary reason for this was that it wasn't clear if there were use cases that would benefit from a status code (as opposed to just using the body of the response), and whether there was interest in deployment. Over time, this was clarified; both Web sites and consuming software demonstrated interest. Importantly, we heard that having an indicator that an automated client could easily detect would help users like Lumen <https://lumendatabase.org> (formerly, Chilling Effects). As a result (and after discussion both on list and in meetings), we decided to adopt the draft. Technical discussion involved a broad selection of the Working Group. There was some back and forth about what the right scope for the status code's semantics should be (as well as whether we needed more than one), but we were able to achieve consensus on the current document. 451 has already been adopted by some sites on the Web, and based upon discussions (mostly private), it appears that a significantly larger number will adopt it once it becomes standard. On the client side, interest has been expressed by Lumen, Article19, CDT and others. Personnel Mark Nottingham is the document shepherd; Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.