Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 13 October 2015 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F4F1B2E3C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UbiCK5GCAZxb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F91D1B2E3B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZlnXy-0007og-Hm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:34:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:34:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZlnXy-0007og-Hm@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ZlnXv-0007nz-Lf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:34:27 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ZlnXs-0004fL-Et for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:34:26 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.17] (unknown [120.149.147.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE2C622E271; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <560B60AA.504@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:33:55 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E7CE2C2-2126-4E3E-B18A-2EBD28CEE6D2@mnot.net>
References: <0E5383DD-927C-493F-90C4-4A9C7CB93308@mnot.net> <560B60AA.504@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.365, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZlnXs-0004fL-Et f7f00245668622e8b754f258eee311ab
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5E7CE2C2-2126-4E3E-B18A-2EBD28CEE6D2@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30353
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Amos,

I've raised the first issue here as:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/103

What do you (and others) think about Ted's suggestion?

The rest of it looks like editorial suggestions, so I'll leave them for Tim to take on board.


> On 30 Sep 2015, at 2:10 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> On 30/09/2015 4:29 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Everyone,
>> 
>> After talking with the editor and our AD, I think this document is ready to progress; the only remaining action on it is to add the registration template for the new link relation.
>> 
>> So, this is the announcement of WGLC for: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-02
>> 
>> Please review the document carefully, and comment on this list.
>> 
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "for use when a server operator has a received a legal demand to deny
> access to a resource"
> 
> This is a lot more restrictive than what I understood was being agreed
> to. This phrasing implies that a specific-URL DMCA type notice is
> required before the status may be used.
> 
> It would be a lot more reasonable to also allow the status to be used
> when a blanket law requirement was levelled on the operator. For example
> schools following laws on porn fitering, or national level restrictions
> on categories of traffic. In cases like these operators dont receive
> per-resource demands, they often receive a one-off notice "law X applies
> to you" and are then expected to censor proactively to the best of their
> ability and face the court on overlooked URLs.
> 
> Probably this can be resolved with s/legal demand/legal requirement/.
> 
> There are other "legal demand" phrase uses elsewhere to keep in sync.
> 
> If "legal demand" is being used with a meaning other than a specific
> warrant DMCA takedown etc. Then that definitely needs to be explained.
> 
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "This transparency s/may be/is/ beneficial"
> 
> How much benefit and in what ways is the questionable part IMHO. Not
> whether there is benefit.
> 
> 
> Section 4:
> "A human readable response body, as discussed above, is the appropriate
> location for discussion of administrative and policy issues."
> 
> This is specification document, not a discussion one. I suggest
> rephrasing along the lines of:
> 
> "A human readable response body, as defined above, is the appropriate
> location for text regarding administrative and policy issues."
> 
> and/or with a reference to section 3 instead of just "above".
> 
> 
> 
> Amos
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/