Re: Call for adoption: draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-denied-00 (Ends 2026-04-03)

I support adoption, though I think we need to do a little careful thinking about the scope of the new status code.  This is quite a narrow definition, which is at odds with the scarcity of additional codes.  The "Purpose Unacceptable" or whatever was suggested during the meeting is a modest expansion of scope.  We should discuss the implications of that or other more expansive definitions ... in the WG.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2026, at 03:41, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Hello HTTP,
>
> As discussed at the meeting yesterday, we’re starting a call for 
> adoption on draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-denied. 
>
> Please respond to this email to indicate if you support adoption, 
> within two weeks from today.
>
> From the discussion at the meeting, we expect there to be a fair bit of 
> bike-shedding over the specific name of the status code. If you have 
> opinions, feel free to put them out, but focus the adoption question on 
> the general solution.
>
> Best,
> Tommy
>
>> On Mar 20, 2026, at 9:38 AM, Tommy Pauly via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> This message starts a httpbis WG Call for Adoption of:
>> draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-denied-00
>> 
>> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-04-03
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   This specification defines a HTTP status code to indicate that the
>>   server is denying a prefetch or preload request.
>> 
>> About This Document
>> 
>>   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
>> 
>>   Status information for this document may be found at
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-
>>   denied/.
>> 
>>   information can be found at https://mnot.github.io/I-D/.
>> 
>>   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
>>   https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/pre-denied.
>> 
>> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption
>> of this Internet-Draft by the httpbis WG. Comments to explain your preference
>> are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and
>> include this message in your response.
>> 
>> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
>> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
>> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
>> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
>> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
>> found at [3].
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-denied/
>> 
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-httpbis-pre-denied-00.html

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2026 05:10:45 UTC