Re: [websec] WGLC feedback for X-Frame-Options

Dear websec fellows,

I just uploaded the latest version of XFO including the WGLC feedback I
received.
(Apologies for the delay, this happened due to some personal difficulties.)

I hope the new revision is satisfactory and we can go to IETF LC.
The changes were only very small:
- the "deprecation of X-" comment is in the introduction section incl.
reference to 6648
- and I removed the section 2.2.2 as recommended by Julian.

Best regards, Tobias

On 09/11/12 03:28, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> On 08/11/12 14:22, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> I suggest an explicit statement such as..
>>>
>>>    The purpose of this specification is to document existing practice.
>>>
>>> ..should appear in the abstract and the intoduction.
>> ...
>>> I wonder if also a note will be necessary to explain the use of the
>>> "X-"
>>> prefix in light of...
>>>
>>> 6648 Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application
>>>       Protocols. P. Saint-Andre, D. Crocker, M. Nottingham. June 2012.
>> These are, of course, related, and one statement can cover both.  I
>> can pretty much guarantee you'll get DISCUSSes from the IESG if you
>> don't do it.
>
> Thank you Jeff for reminding me. Forgot to include them.
> Well, as we already have PSA's RFC on that (which btw. inspired XFO,
> both (comment and reference) have been added to the text of working
> copy (released in next version after this week).
>
>
>>
>> Barry, as AD
>> _______________________________________________
>> websec mailing list
>> websec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec