Re: [websec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt> (The Web Origin Concept) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I replied to Julian's message on a W3C list.  Julian, is there more
discussion you'd like to have about these points?

Adam


On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Below a few late comments..
>
> 6. Serializing Origins
>
> - It really really seems that the two algorithms need to be swapped (the
> first one converts to ASCII, but the second does not).
>
> - Also, I'd prefer a declarative definition.
>
> 7. The HTTP Origin header
>
> - header *field*
>
> - the syntax doesn't allow multiple header fields, and the prose says
> clients MUST NOT generate them; what is the recipient supposed to do when it
> get's multiple instances anyway? Is the default approach (ignoring them all)
> good enough? Do we need to warn recipients so that they check?
>
> 11. References
>
> - the WEBSOCKETS reference should be updated (if a new draft is produced)
>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]