From nobody Sat Jul 1 12:04:54 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992DE129503; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vetbVeHim20G; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from durif.tools.ietf.org (durif.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::3d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385AA1201F8; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from henrik by durif.tools.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1dRNhG-0006Ul-4y; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:04:46 -0700 To: xml2rfc@ietf.org Cc: codesprints@ietf.org, rfc-markdown@ietf.org Message-Id: From: Henrik Levkowetz Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:04:46 -0700 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: codesprints@ietf.org, rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on durif.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v2.7.0 X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2017 19:04:47 -0000 Hi, This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release, v2.7.0, generated when running the mkrelease script. Release notes: xml2rfc (2.7.0) ietf; urgency=low This introduces the vocabulary v2 to v3 converter, which reads RFC7749-compliant xml input, and writes RFC7991-compliant xml output, converting elements marked as deprecated in RFC7991 to the eqivalent new constructs, or removing attributes and elements if no equivalent construct exists. Use the format switch --v2v3 to request v2v3 conversion. Use --verbose to have comments added to the converted xml detailing the conversions which have been done. The new version is available through SVN checkout, with 'svn checkout http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/tools/xml2rfc/tags/cli/2.7.0' Regards, Henrik (via the mkrelease script) From nobody Sat Jul 15 14:28:16 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C1E128C81 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJNW-y6TL7Wv for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 614AC124D85 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dWUbb-00029M-UT for rfc-markdown@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:28:07 +0200 Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:28:02 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org Message-ID: <20170715212802.v3rhmvbeah2nerr6@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3dwelgaw6nhqxo67" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: b1a2ba77d55080f49e861a400990c11e Archived-At: Subject: [Rfc-markdown] Element middle content does not follow the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:28:14 -0000 --3dwelgaw6nhqxo67 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="53qzkd4z3p4r4ai4" Content-Disposition: inline --53qzkd4z3p4r4ai4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I am getting this weird error while running make that I don't really know h= ow to fix: $ make kramdown-rfc2629 draft-451-imp-report.md > 451-imp-report.staging.xml mv 451-imp-report.staging.xml draft-451-imp-report.xml xml2rfc draft-451-imp-report.xml --html Parsing file draft-451-imp-report.xml ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: draft-451-imp-report.xml draft-451-imp-report.xml: Line 72: Element middle content does not follow = the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. Makefile:11: recipe for target 'draft-451-imp-report.html' failed make: *** [draft-451-imp-report.html] Error 1 Whereas I think I am following the guidelines. I found someone else had the same problem here: https://github.com/cabo/kra= mdown-rfc2629/issues/29 I am using kramdown from the Debian repo: $ apt-cache show ruby-kramdown-rfc2629=20 Package: ruby-kramdown-rfc2629 Version: 1.0.36-1 The draft can be found here: https://github.com/451hackathon/451-imp-report= /blob/master/draft-451-imp-report.md and attached. All pointers very welcome. Thanks! Niels --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --53qzkd4z3p4r4ai4 Content-Type: text/markdown; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-451-imp-report.md" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --- title: Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) abbrev: 451ImpReport docname: draft-451-imp-report-00 date: 2017-07-15 category: info ipr: trust200902 area: General workgroup: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group keyword: Internet-Draft stand_alone: yes pi:=20 rfcedstyle: yes toc: yes tocindent: yes sortrefs: yes symrefs: yes strict: yes comments: yes inline: yes text-list-symbols: -o*+ author: - ins: S. Abraham name: Sunil Abraham organization: CIS India email: sunil@cis-india.org - ins: MP. Canales name: Maria Paz Canales organization: Derechos Digitales email: mariapaz@derechosdigitales.org - ins: J. Hall name: Joseph Lorenzo Hall organization: CDT email: joe@cdt.org - ins: N. ten Oever name: Niels ten Oever organization: ARTICLE 19 email: niels@article19.org - ins: C. Runnegar name: Christine Runnegar organization: ISOC email: runnegar@isoc.org normative: informative: RFC7725: Censys: title: "80.http.get.status_code: 451 - Censys" date: 2017 author: - ins: Z. Durumeric - ins: D. Adrian - ins: A. Mirian=20 - ins: M. Bailey - ins: J.A. Halderman target: https://www.censys.io/ipv4?q=3D80.http.get.status_code%3A+451 Github: title: The 451 status code is now supported date: 2016 author: - ins: G. Torikian target: https://developer.github.com/changes/2016-03-17-the-451-status= -code-is-now-supported/ Twitter: title: Country withheld content author: - org: Twitter, inc. target: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222# Facebook: title: How do I add or edit country or age restrictions for my Page? author: - org: Facebook, inc. target: https://developer.github.com/changes/2016-03-17-the-451-status= -code-is-now-supported/ Youtube: title: Censorship of YouTube date: 2017 author: - org: Wikipedia target: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube Reddit: title: LGBTI sections disappear as Reddit complies with 100% of Turkey= censorship orders date: 2017 author: - org: Turkey Blocks target: https://turkeyblocks.org/2017/04/04/lgbti-sections-disappear-a= s-reddit-complies-with-turkey-censorship-orders/ =20 --- abstract This report describes implementation experience between various components = working with the HTTP Status Code 451 {{RFC7725}}. --- middle Introduction =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This document aims to evaluate the usage of HTTP status code 451, which was= approved by the IETF in February 2016 {{RFC7725}}. This implementation rep= ort aims to illuminate whether the status code does what it set out to do (= "provide transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public policy= affect server operations"), the different ways it is being used, positive = and negative impacts of the standard and we end with suggestions for improv= ement of the standard.=20 Vocabulary =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Blocking=20 : The act of making an HTTP resource inaccessible to a class of users. Resource=20 : A top-level information object served by an HTTP server (e.g., HTML page). Subresource=20 : An information object served within the context of a top-level Resource (= e.g., JavaScript, Image, etc.) Server Operator=20 : An entity or an individual operating an HTTP server. HTTP status=20 : For each response, HTTP servers return a numerical status code (e.g., 400= (OK), 403 (unauthorized), etc.) described by IANA https://www.iana.org/ass= ignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml. Response=20 : When an HTTP Server responds to a request, it sends a Response, made up o= f header fields and a body (See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7725#sectio= n-3=20 Legal demand=20 : A verbal or written request grounded in law or regulation from an Authori= ty to a Server Operator to Blocking a Resource. Authority=20 : A government or government-licensed entity mandating blocking of a resour= ce directly or that may institute laws that indirectly require blocking of = a resource. Complainant=20 : A party making a Legal demand; may or may not be an Authority (e.g., the = US DMCA allows a copyright holder to demand takedown). Target audiences =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D # Who is likely to implement the 451 status code? ## Server operators=20 Server operators that are being confronted with an order from a legal autho= rity can use the HTTP status code to communicate to third parties why the c= ontent is not available on the server. ## Intermediaries=20 Intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers, Content Distribution Net= works and other might be obligated by a legal authority in their operationa= l jurisdiction to filter certain content. The HTTP status code would add tr= ansparency to this practice. # Who is likely to use the 451 status code data? ## Browser vendors=20 Browser vendors might implement functionality to communicate the presence o= f a HTTP status code 451 to a user. ## End users End users will be informed about why the information they are trying to acc= ess is not available, instead of merely concluding that the content is not = available due to other reasons (e.g., 404 unavailable).=20 ## Researchers=20 Researchers might want to scan for the prevalence of blocking, as well as t= rends in blocking behavior.=20 ## Civil society Civil society may want to use instances of HTTP status code 451 to highligh= t censorship and censorship trends, to challenge blocking. ## Governments Governments might want to verify compliance with blocking orders and use HT= TP status code 451 to do so on the networks in their jurisdiction. Current Usage =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D # Overview In the majority of cases in which HTTP status code 451 is being deployed {{= Censys}}, the status code reads as follows - "451 Unavailable For Legal Rea= sons" or "451" or "451 Unknown Error" or "451 Error" or "451 Unavailable Fo= r Legal Reasons (burned)" or "451 OK". The Page Title could say "404 Not Fo= und" or "Blocked" or "451 -" or "Restricted access" or "Bloqueado por ordem= judicial" ("Blocked by judicial order") or "Sito censurato" ("Censored sit= e") or "=D0=94=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D1=83=D0=BF =D0=BE=D0=B3=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BD= =D0=B8=D1=87=D0=B5=D0=BD" ("Access is restricted") or "=D0=97=D0=B5=D0=BB= =D1=91=D0=BD=D0=B0=D1=8F =D1=82=D0=BE=D1=87=D0=BA=D0=B0 - =D0=B4=D0=BE=D1= =81=D1=82=D1=83=D0=BF =D0=BA =D0=B7=D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=88=D0=B8=D0= =B2=D0=B0=D0=B5=D0=BC=D0=BE=D0=BC=D1=83 =D1=80=D0=B5=D1=81=D1=83=D1=80=D1= =81=D1=83 =D0=BE=D0=B3=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=B8=D1=87=D0=B5=D0=BD" ("Zelenay= a tochka" - Internet and TV provider - access to the requested resource is = restricted")or "Violazione del bispensiero" or "Please report sexual abuse = against children to the Swedish National Bureau of Investigation!" or "Cop= yright Notice" or "451 RKN Redirect" (RKN is likely Russia's Roskomnadzor) = or "ATTENZIONE!! - POLIZIA POSTALE E DELLE COMUNICAZIONI - PAGINA BLOCCATA"= ("Attention! - Postal and Communications Policy - Blocked Page") or "451 U= navailable For Legal Reasons =E6=9C=AC=E7=BD=91=E7=AB=99=E7=94=B1=E4=BA=8E= =E5=9B=BD=E5=AE=B6=E6=94=BF=E7=AD=96=E8=80=8C=E4=B8=8D=E5=8F=AF=E7=94=A8" (= Chinese: "This site is not available due to national policy"). =20 The hosts that were observed implementing the status code are located in Ru= ssia, United States of America, Singapore, Czech Republic, Thailand, Nether= lands, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, France, = United Kingdom, Ukraine, Norway, Finland, Kazakhstan, United Arab Emirates,= Japan, China, Philippines and Australia. In some cases - the visitor to th= e website is provided some context for the block -- for example, a take-dow= n notice for copyright infringment -- in other cases the visitor is encoura= ged to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. The page title may have in= formation that does not always make sense in the context of the error code,= for example when the title says "404 Not Found" but the page is a 451 resp= onse body. These observations are based an examination of the search result= s from Censys.io on 15 July 2017 which featured 526 IPv4 Hosts of which 17 = were included in the list of "Top Million Websites". Several large content providers are now supporting the HTTP 451 Status Code= , such as {{Github}} and {{Reddit}}, whereas other content providers such a= s {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}}, and {{Youtube}} are currently not using the HT= TP status code to indicate the blocking or takedown of specific content. # Trends and observations - The majority of instance of HTTP status code 451 provide no explanation i= n the response body. - There have been found several cases of servers serving HTTP status code 4= 51 with redirect another server with a central warning message of a blockin= g authority. - A registrar serves HTTP status code 451 when a registrant did not pay the= ir domain fees. - There are significant observations of server serving HTTP status code 451= based on geoIP (especially for gambling sites). - There are different understandings of the 'blocked-by' field as defined i= n RFC7725. Some people interpret is as the entity that is doing the blockin= g, others are interpreting it at the authority responsible for ordering the= blocking. - HTTP Status Code 451 is thusfar only served by hosts, not by intermediari= es. Potential negative or positive impacts =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - {{RFC7725}} specifies a status code for web resources that are blocked fo= r legal reasons. The HTTP status code 451 is designed to enable content pro= viders and intermediaries (including ISPs and search engines) to notify use= rs that their access to specific web resources has been blocked for legal r= easons. The standard also recommends that the notification include an expla= nation. This is important because this is the detail the user needs to be a= ble to understand why access has been blocked, and if desired, to take acti= on to challenge the blocked access. It also helps content servers and inter= mediaries who have been required to block access to notify users who direct= ed that access by blocked. - Also, as the 451 status code is machine-readable, researchers and others = could use web crawlers to identity which blocked URLs or sub-resources use = error code 451. This data could be used to produce a searchable open reposi= tory of all known error code 451 instances. This information could then be = used to map the blocked Web and to analyze the explanations, looking for tr= ends and anomalies. For example, one day there might be an answer to the qu= estion =E2=80=93 =E2=80=9Chow much content is blocked for IPR reasons?=E2= =80=9D - The 451 status code can also be used for encrypted webpages, which is sig= nificant as encryption on the Web becomes more and more prevalent. A user s= hould be able to see the error code irrespective of whether they try to acc= ess the content via HTTP or HTTPS. - This standard is a prime example of an Internet protocol enabling common = policy objectives (in this case, transparency) to be implemented across the= world. However, as with all IETF standards, the implementation of the 451 = status code is voluntary. So, how widely it is used will likely depend on = a number of factors, including a legal/political regime that does not penal= ize transparency, the willingness to be transparent and the capability to i= mplement.=20 - It is possible that status code 451 code could be used for other purposes= (e.g. to mislead users as to the reason for the content being blocked), es= pecially as =E2=80=9Clegal reasons=E2=80=9D is not defined.=20 - It is also possible that content providers and intermediaries who are req= uired to block content for legal reasons to be asked or compelled to use an= other status code (e.g. 404). In these circumstances, content providers and= intermediaries should include information in their transparency reports to= indicate whether this is happening, by, for example, stating: =E2=80=9CWe = have/have not been required to replace 451 by other status codes.=E2=80=9D - There may be a temptation in some cases of the implementation of status c= ode 451 to include the ability to identify and/or track the users that visi= t a web resource that has been blocked. This raises significant privacy iss= ues.=20 - The usage of HTTP status code 451 might lead to an increase in blocking b= ecause it makes analyzing compliance easier.=20 What are features of a blocking reporting infrastructure that would be usef= ul? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D - The reporting format needs to cover information enough to satisfy transpa= rency and offer insight about possible misuse of 451 error as a vehicle for= censorship. - Transparency requirement will be better served through standardization of= fields and descriptions. Currently many implementations for HTTP status co= de 451 do not provide the reason for blocking. This could be attributed to = the fact that the different needs are not sufficiently documented in RFC772= 5. This could be fixed by adding fields in the header. Useful categorizatio= n fields to accurately describe content blocked by legal reasons are: -- Identification of the legal source on which the blocking request is base= d. -- Identification of the complainant/requestor if is an institution (not if= individual because of privacy concerns). It could be useful to identify in= this field if the request comes from a private or public entity, and in if= there is a judicial order involved, or a law enforcement or other type of = governmental request. -- Description of blocked content (example: 'Non-consensual sexually explic= it imagery'). It could be helpful to have suggested fields that standardize= type of content in order to make easier the analysis and the evaluation ab= out eventual challenge of the use of error 451 for the specific content rem= oval. -- Determination of the geographical scope of the blocking. Increasingly bl= ocks are being implemented at the level of the city or province. Therefore = country codes may not be sufficient to describe the geographical scope. -- Date of block order and time-period for which the block has to be enforc= ed. -- Date of start serving HTTP status code 451. -- Link to the final decision (if available). Again this should only be the= case when the complainant is not an individual. -- Contact information for relevant authority for the purposes of verificat= ion of procedural stage and appeal or redress opportunities. What features of blocking events are supported by the existing 451 status c= ode, and what features do we need to add? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - Guidance on the representation of HTTP status code for subresources in br= owsers - Guidance on the implementation of HTTP status code 451 could lead to an i= ncrease in adoption. RFC7725 provides high level advice but still leaves sp= ace for interpretation. An implementation guide in conjunction with an adop= tion campaign might lead to increased adoption.=20 - {{RFC7725}} does not clarify whether HTTP Status Code 451 is only meant f= or respones to GET/HEAD requests or also for POST/HEAD requests.=20 Background: Legal Realities =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D In the light of the use cases outlined above underneath we are providing an= overview of legal frameworks in a number of countries that could be used t= o make a blocking request. This is to show that a reference to a the descri= ption of blocked content, the legal source on which the blocking order or r= equest is based and the authority that is makes the order or request is cru= cial in understanding the context and nature of the blockage. # Russia Blocking by the government: ## Federal Law of 27 July 2006 Law No. 149-FZ on Information, Information Technologies and Protection of I= nformation and its amendments: - =E2=80=9CBlacklist=E2=80=9D law 139-FZ (2012) =E2=80=93 allowing to block= websites if they appear to have dangerous information for children such as= information about suicide and drugs. The blocking was often done by keywor= d so as a result one of the biggest wiki sites in Russia (Lukmore) was accu= sed of drugs propaganda, an online encyclopedia (Absurdopedia) was accused = of suicide propaganda and an online game was blocked because on it=E2=80=99= s forum somebody used a word =E2=80=9Cdrug=E2=80=9D.=20 - =E2=80=9CAnti-pirate=E2=80=9D law 187-FZ (2013) =E2=80=93 easier way for = the government to block access to websites if they are suspected in any wro= ngdoing. The amendment also allows blocking by IP address. Leads to the blo= ckage of portals such as OpenSharing.org=20 - The law 398-FZ on immediate blockage of websites at the request of Prosec= utor General (2013). - =E2=80=9CBloggers=E2=80=99 amendment=E2=80=9D 97-FZ (2014) =E2=80=93 blo= ggers with more than 3000 need to register as mass media (=E2=80=9Cinformat= ion distributors=E2=80=9D) and have the same responsibilities (including on= what their readers post in comments). - Data localization law 242-FZ (2015) all companies collecting personal dat= a of the Russian citizens must store that information on the servers within= Russia - The laws against extremism that have been updated throughout the past 5 y= ears expanding the term =E2=80=9Cextremism=E2=80=9D and making the punishme= nt tougher (jail terms for posting and reposting) as well as blocking. Thes= e laws have been used widely after the conflict in Ukraine. Some people got= jail sentences and resources were being blocked for spreading information = sympathizing with the Ukrainian side. Such laws are particularly vague and = =E2=80=9Cextremism=E2=80=9D is very laxly defined. For example, =E2=80=9C= =E2=80=A6extremist materials, as well as information propagating racial, na= tional or religious hatred or enmity or hatred towards any social group.=E2= =80=9D=20 ## =E2=80=9CYarovaya laws=E2=80=9D=20 This law was approved by the Parliament and, if passed, will oblige messagi= ng apps to store messaging history and decrypt messages at prosecutors=E2= =80=99 request.=20 # Chile # India ## Blocking by the government=20 Under Section 69A of Information Technology Act 2000, the executive branch = of the government has "the power to issue directions for blocking for publi= c access of any information through any computer Resource". According to th= e law, any person can send a block request to a Nodal Officer. These Nodal = Officers should be designated in all government entities to deal with block= requests. The request is then approved by the state or central Chief Secre= tary. This step is not required if the Nodal Officer has initiated the bloc= king procedure without any complainant. The request is then forward to the = head of CERT-IN. If it is not a public emergency, the persons or intermedia= ries should be given 48 hours to respond. But this is not required if the e= mergency provision has been invoked, but the block list still has to be rev= iewed by "Committee for Examination of Request" within 48 hours after the b= lock been issued. The block lists are usually issued directly to ISPs and a= re marked confidential and are implemented unevenly with some ISPs providin= g sparse details if users try to access the blocked resources and other ISP= s returning a 404 Error Code.=20 ## Blocking by courts Increasingly Indian courts are issuing ex-parte John Doe orders for website= blocking. These orders can be issued by courts for any illegal content. Th= ere are around 30 different laws that place reasonable restrictions on the = right to free speech in India. For example: The Scheduled Castes and the Sc= heduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, The Prenatal Diagnosti= c Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and The Juveni= le Justice Act, 2000. Some of these laws have multiple provisions that regu= late speech for ex. the Information Technology Act has 6 sections and the I= ndian Penal Code has 10 sections. Once a court order has been obtained, the= order can be sent to Secretary of the Department of Electronics and Inform= ation Technology who will then forward it to ISPs. Or alternatively complai= nants could also send court orders directly to ISPs without following the p= rocedure described above. =20 ## Takedowns by web sites Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000, both the governmen= t and private parties can send take-down notices to web sites. Intermediari= es can ignore private party take-downs without losing immunity but take-dow= n notices from the government have to be complied with. Under Section 52(1)= (c) of the Indian Copyright Act, take-down notices can be sent to websites = who are engaged in infringement but they need to be followed by court order= s otherwise the content can be reinstated.=20 # United States of America --53qzkd4z3p4r4ai4-- --3dwelgaw6nhqxo67 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAllqiOIACgkQDtg/OkaK yLP6RA/8C0O+JPVIfZ2ceI9VFJGYPZOtMb0AMbxwf8I2+LSfyAGHEehhU3rdDGDz /epMrY+6Ht2C33Q0GqRMsQAAq3UAM4vw06yzX0/aVcYC6ZrAHNsHT/G3EB8kFzqq qgLBFoxPc8dAilOmR+H3sSk+nY6/CxHVqk2aaRMLHdmPOlkxLskvVmAv4RG4gHBm Eq0l7Kh/YnfcWZZfNGR+JCBlCrKXQ7yDZqgjeBbsTcYv6nChtScujx1hQhZDUNC9 eMa06iREvCrs+PKF1Gh5bb+cr8U+ROiyO3r7ky3aH8QzoUIYxvV1QyR0tNeXOJ0G spl/tKb0He0cJCMGFs31BsbcJOL29w+MWgN3M6vdHlOdFgAQRS+khwnZicTEOQBR 1yCtKQZHhvzQDC2cR8KxCwKT9YE64ygLtc1HYCBfGfCUfw2ub/E+t+anT84T+OFo 16MLqJn/FALSaaVQgNjyuESz9cDNJ7SEWXcgKTGGLepvPz8CWcvDC9opeU9YWf6H 2Q7bvWHWCQxEGP31666rLL17ETU2j0Kao/idVu1842LcJMUQ9VrgQHekW6JzLdPj Wz5I0+0ZX6MF7SKhuCn0u6fXpk4A7yqUSyccyeYULsmqir6GmNqNQYCyfisYJK8j 0JTGxc/gjzMX3cGvIKxnbaBElvy7L/MNUxC9h2JdaEelyZ+uyqY= =ftsB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3dwelgaw6nhqxo67-- From nobody Sat Jul 15 15:30:02 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0B21270AC for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Yb6PWaInauX for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68431205F0 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6FMTuiM024455; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 00:29:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from surfer-172-30-2-218-hotspot.internet-for-guests.com (107.223.broadband2.iol.cz [83.208.223.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3x944M6CY2z3Yyb; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 00:29:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <20170715212802.v3rhmvbeah2nerr6@mir> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 00:29:55 +0200 Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 521850595.108781-f83e101d8f3632eb1b793914a8750e9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14E93D43-95F3-4BEA-ABE4-AAABAE5F138B@tzi.org> References: <20170715212802.v3rhmvbeah2nerr6@mir> To: Niels ten Oever X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] Element middle content does not follow the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:30:01 -0000 On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:28, Niels ten Oever = wrote: >=20 > draft-451-imp-report.xml: Line 72: Element middle content does not = follow the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. I don=E2=80=99t get that. Maybe there is a problem with the locale set on your system (the = markdown contains beyond-ASCII characters). Can you send me the XML as well? Maybe you want to call xml2rfc with -u to actually get those = beyond-ASCII characters. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Wed Jul 19 05:02:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A2C131CD8 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:02:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2jefa2xPwZT for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71FAB131CD6 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXng3-0003z7-Mv; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:02:03 +0200 To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org References: <20170715212802.v3rhmvbeah2nerr6@mir> <14E93D43-95F3-4BEA-ABE4-AAABAE5F138B@tzi.org> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <8820df44-caa3-a8a9-f81e-c106ecf591bb@digitaldissidents.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:02:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14E93D43-95F3-4BEA-ABE4-AAABAE5F138B@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 29cc722430e8f1f6ed904119444c0d49b0f3ee91 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: b011d5308189b8f364b008c39e0eea9f Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] Element middle content does not follow the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:02:07 -0000 On 07/16/2017 12:29 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:28, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> >> draft-451-imp-report.xml: Line 72: Element middle content does not follow the DTD, expecting (section)+, got nothing. > > I don’t get that. > > Maybe there is a problem with the locale set on your system (the markdown contains beyond-ASCII characters). > Can you send me the XML as well? > > Maybe you want to call xml2rfc with -u to actually get those beyond-ASCII characters. > > Grüße, Carsten > It was the locale set! Thank you very much Carsten! -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9