- From: Max Bittman <max.bittman@fastly.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:08:07 -0700
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Received on Monday, 6 October 2025 19:08:23 UTC
Sorry about the double posting, I hadn't been subscribed to the list previously and it didn't seem as though messages were going through. It looks like this conversation migrated to the masque list which at this point has deeper context/background: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/e2FU_95lbC_TCVa9hMx7BCRoOBA/ I think it's probably better that the conversation continues there. On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 5:38 PM Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 03/10/2025 05:05, Max Bittman wrote: > > > > I'd be happy to elaborate more on our specific use case, > > > That might help. Yes please. > > So far it seems to be a duplicate of RFC 9209 section 2.3.17: > > " > Name: http_request_denied > > Description: > The intermediary rejected the HTTP request based on its > configuration and/or policy settings. The request wasn't forwarded to > the next hop. > > Recommended HTTP Status Code: 403 > " > > > Cheers > Amos > > >
Received on Monday, 6 October 2025 19:08:23 UTC