An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.Search Mailarchive
(Jari Arkko) Yes
I am in FULL support of this specification
Ben Campbell Yes
Alissa Cooper Yes
I realize that the way this document uses the term "legal demand" has been discussed at some length, but I'm concerned that the way that it is used may limit the applicability of the status code, so I wanted to mention that here. The term "legal" has at least two meanings, one being "related to the law" and the other being "authorized by law." I think it would be a shame if use of this status code could be interpreted as a concession on the part of a server operator that any particular demand was authorized by law. Sometimes a server operator may feel the need to comply with a request even if it does not believe the request is authorized by law (e.g., while litigation is pending, or out of fear of adverse consequences for its employees). Operators shouldn't be put in the position where they have to be concerned that using the status code could later be used as evidence that they believed a particular request was authorized by law, particularly if there is a chance that they will be sued for having blocked the resource. The tricky part is that it takes more words to convey this concept than the document currently uses. My suggestion would be to replace "legal demand" with "demand based on a claim of legal violation" in the abstract, section 1, and the first paragraph of section 3, and replace all other instances of "legal demand" with "demand." This is a little clunky but it's the best idea I could come up with.
Spencer Dawkins Yes
(Stephen Farrell) Yes
(Barry Leiba) Yes
Terry Manderson Yes
Nice work. love it.
Kathleen Moriarty Yes
Alia Atlas No Objection
A little humor lightening a serious draft is appreciated. :-)
Deborah Brungard No Objection
Benoit Claise No Objection
Why do we have this sentence? Feedback should occur on the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list. What sort of feedback is expected, if this becomes an RFC?
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
I support Alissa's Comment and suggested textual changes.
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
I think the dicussion has run to the end of it natural course and touching it further will likely make it worse not better. so despite any misgivings I might have I think it should probably go forward without any changes to the current text respecting definitions of legally restricted. Fred Baker did the opsdir review, I am pleased to see that we are congruent.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
I must be in the 5% that didn't get the PFJ reference right away. :-(