RE: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03

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

 



Yes

-Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 10:10 AM
> To: Stephen Hanna
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; draft-nottingham-http-new-status@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> secdir@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
> 
> On 2012-01-30 16:05, Stephen Hanna wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I don't want to rehash the discussion that we've already had.
> > Clearly, you prefer brevity while I would prefer education in
> > this instance.
> >
> > I can live with your text for status codes 428, 429, and 431. For
> > 511, I don't think it's adequate to just say that big security
> > issues already exist. You should at least give some suggestions
> > for how to deal with them. For example, you could point out that
> > most user agents include some indication of whether the server
> > has been authenticated. For captive portals, this indication will
> > generally not be displayed so the user receives some warning
> > that the response did not come from the requested URL.
> 
> Are you referring to HTTPS?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
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]