Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [websec] HTTP 'Origin' permanent and provisional

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 14 February 2013 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C3221E80DE; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.905, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlagYeXpRbIg; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1C021E80D5; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.202.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AFB522E200; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:04:39 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <511BFD7B.40101@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:04:34 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <94E75F54-CA07-4276-98BD-F34C99A11A4A@mnot.net>
References: <iljnh8d2cisqlsqvai0662974a0ei71qsn@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20130213113549.0afcce60@resistor.net> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC3027721119A6FFE@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <511BF66F.5070100@gmx.de> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC3027721119A7198@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <511BFD7B.40101@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "<websec@ietf.org>" <websec@ietf.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "<ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>" <ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [websec] HTTP 'Origin' permanent and provisional
X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <ietf-message-headers.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-message-headers>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:04:52 -0000

We've been talking for a while about revising 3864; it needs a lot more than this done.

Cheers,


On 14/02/2013, at 7:54 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-02-13 21:43, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Well.
>>> 
>>> You make it sound as if it's ok to run two different registries with partly overlapping values. It's not. It's a bug in the way IANA handles this. This is what needs to be fixed.
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> I don't want to turn this into a process debate, but having a provisional registry like this allows you to create interoperable implementations while the document is still at draft. I often see a push to get a document published because we need the IANA assignments for products.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Of course they could still do this with a single registry where provisional entries are somehow marked (with an asterisk?). That way we wouldn't get to a situation where we have double entries.
> 
> The key thing being that both registries share the same namespace, so, by definition, an entry can not appear in both. If it does, there's a process/software problem.
> 
> Of course the trivial way to do this right is to implement a *single* registry, and to just store a flag for each entry.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-message-headers mailing list
> Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/