[websec] #3: Better Effective Request URI definition
"websec issue tracker" <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 08 July 2011 22:04 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763389E8009 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 64-eNTOXPwXJ for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D049E8008 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1QfJ9V-0006TT-Vw; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:04:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: websec issue tracker <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software
To: jeff.hodges@kingsmountain.com
X-Trac-Project: websec
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:04:01 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/websec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/3
Message-ID: <070.63a0bf52be517dce3a5d316b05756c40@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 3
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jeff.hodges@kingsmountain.com, websec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:19:18 -0700
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: [websec] #3: Better Effective Request URI definition
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:04:02 -0000
#3: Better Effective Request URI definition
Present Effective Request URI (ERU) definition is not as good/elegant as
that in HTTPbis.
In case we do not wish to have dependency on HTTPbis spec advancement, due
to normative reference for ERU definition, we can copy the httpbis
definition by value.
--
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: jeff.hodges@… | Owner: =JeffH
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: strict-transport-sec | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/3>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>
- [websec] #3: Better Effective Request URI definit… websec issue tracker
- Re: [websec] #3: Better Effective Request URI def… websec issue tracker