Subject: [hrpc] Remarks about draft-manyfolks-hrcrfc7725

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:40:33 +0800

I think that this draft-manyfolks-hrcrfc7725 would be a welcome
addition to a RFC 7725bis or to a RFC 8280bis. I have a few remarks
about -00:

Section 6 "HTTP 451 status code responses are unverified and may be
fake and/or a vehicle to monitor the user and/or introduce malware."
The entire section is unclear. Does "unverified" means that it was
possibly modified in transit? (If so, the solution is obviously
HTTPS.)

And what is the relationship with malware? If the idea is that the
response body may contain malware, what is specific to 451 responses?

Section 11 "Possible anonymity concerns as identifiers might be
introduced by the parties serving 451 status code." I'm simply unable
to understand this sentence. Elaboration and exemples are needed.

Section 16 "For integrity, a status code 451 should be delivered over
HTTPS." Impossible, because the server has no choice: if the request
was over HTTP, the response has to use the same TCP connection, hence
HTTP.

Section 19 "governments in those countries could mandate the
implementation of status code 521 which will make it easier for them
to monitor the implementation of their block orders.  Finally,
surveillance systems in some countries could be updated to watch out
for the 521 error code" 521 does not exist, is it 451?