Re: Last Call: <draft-sahib-451-new-protocol-elements-01.txt> (New protocol elements for HTTP Status Code 451) to Informational RFC

[S Mooensamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shivan,
At 10:23 AM 03-07-2018, Shivan Kaul Sahib wrote:
>The recommended "updates" are a result of talking to parties from 
>both groups. The reference IMPL_REPORT_DRAFT is the report of an 
>investigation into how HTTP 451 is being used currently (I'll update 
>the draft to make it an informative reference and reduce mention of it).

I read the IRTF implementation report.  The observations from the 
commercial service returned 526 hosts returning a "451".  The few 
hosts I tested returned a "451" only.  However, it was not clear 
whether it was an incorrect implementation of the "451" specification 
or the status code was used as a "403".

For what it is worth, the author of the 1953 book commented that the 
book was not about censorship.

>HTTP 451 is being used to block users who reside in the European 
>Union by websites that are not GDPR-compliant. There is no real 
>"legal demand to deny access" to the resource. The examples given by 
>Tim ("any resources that mention the existence of a certain person", 
>etc) are all fine, as they actually relate to the resource being denied.
>Perhaps this is splitting hairs. However, in talking to server 
>operators actually implementing this status code, confusion leads to 
>them not using the status code when it would be beneficial (to 
>users, to researchers) for them to use it. If we think that the 
>status code should be used for compliance with *any law whatsoever*, 
>even if the law doesn't actually demand that the resource be taken 
>down, then perhaps making that clear would be helpful for people 
>seeking to use the status code.

There were two media groups from the United States which blocked 
access from the European Union to their news sites.  There is a paper 
which argued that it was more about exiting that market instead of 
legal obstacles.

The draft has a normative reference to an erratum.  In 2008, it was 
stated that 'there may be a temptation to use errata to "fix" 
protocol design errors, rather than publishing new RFCs that update 
the erroneous documents'.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy