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
