On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Review Date: 2011-09-05 > IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-06 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > - General: In many places of the document the text speaks about an "HTTP > header". I think it is more accepted to refer to "HTTP header *field*". This > is the terminology widely used in RFC 2616. I believe this is now fixed. Let me know if you see any missing "fields" in https://github.com/abarth/websec/blob/master/drafts/origin.xml. > - First paragraph in Section 3.3, add a formal reference to RFC 3986 when > thzt RFC is mentioned. Fixed. > - Second paragraph in Section 3.4.1: > s/sample/example Fixed. > - Section 4, bullet point #5 speaks of "idna-canonicalized form". I think it > would be nice to have a formal reference to a proper document. Is this > reference RFC 3490, RFC 5890, or another one? Fixed as Peter suggests. > - Section 10.1. There is a strange way to refer to "Unicode Technical > Standard #46". I think it should be promoted to a regular reference, similar > to how [Unicode52] is referred to. So, perhaps this should become > [Unicode46]. The 46 is a different sort of thing than the 52 (the former is a TR number and the later is a Unicode version number). I've changed the reference to be UnicodeTR46, which hopefully will avoid any confusion. Thanks for the review! Adam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf