- From: Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
- Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 19:25:22 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <57A76F02.4020708@mathemainzel.info>
On 06.08.2016 02:25, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Would this help? > > https://mnot.github.io/I-D/proxy-explanation/ > > Keep in mind that only helps for configured proxies. > configured proxies are not the bug; why not just simpy use plain HTML? your sample chould then just be this simple: HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden Content-Type: text/html Cache-Control: no-cache <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Policy Violation</TITLE> /HEAD> <BODY> <H1>Policy Violation</H1> <UL> <LI>This content is above your pay grade.<A HREF="https://acme.example.com/why?https://www.example.net">More Info</A>. </LI> </UL> <HR> <ADDRESS>Acme Networks Proxy</ADDRESS> </BODY> </HTML> is this really a disadvantage doing it this way? and if yes, why? without having the signing certificate used by the proxy installed in the certstore of the client the "new way" have no advantages;
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2016 17:28:29 UTC