An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Jari Arkko Yes

Comment (2015-12-17)
I am in FULL support of this specification

Ben Campbell Yes

Alissa Cooper Yes

Comment (2015-12-13)
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

Comment (2015-12-15)
Nice work. love it.

Kathleen Moriarty Yes

Alia Atlas No Objection

Comment (2015-12-15)
A little humor lightening a serious draft is appreciated. :-)

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

Comment (2015-12-16)
Why do we have this sentence?

   Feedback should occur on the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list.

What sort of feedback is expected, if this becomes an RFC?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-16)
I support Alissa's Comment and suggested textual changes.

Joel Jaeggli No Objection

Comment (2015-12-14)
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

Comment (2015-12-14)
I must be in the 5% that didn't get the PFJ reference right away. :-(

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection