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

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian,

thanks a lot!
Just uploaded the revised version correcting your two nits.

Best regards, Tobias


On 25/06/13 16:49, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-06-22 08:10, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> 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
>
> Thanks.
>
> A few nits:
>
> In 2.2, I'd replace
>
>    The RFC 5234 [RFC5234] ABNF of the X-Frame-Options header is:
>
> by
>
>    The RFC 5234 [RFC5234] ABNF of the X-Frame-Options header field
> value is:
>
> (emphasis on *value*)
>
> (Also fix remaining instances of "header" to say "header field" for
> consistency).

Fixed the existing instance.
But I went through all the other instances and did not fix the remaining
instances, because most of them were semantically referring to the
header itself and not the specific field value and secondly some of them
were using the term "header field" which I believe captures the semantic
of the particular sentences appropriately. But let me know which
instance you think should be corrected as well.

>
> In the appendices, please fix the W3C references to include the author
> names and the publication status, see
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html#ref-CR-CSP-20121115>
> and
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html#ref-WD-CSP11-20130604>.

Thanks. I corrected the refs. And I guess we will also revisit the
reference links before publication in case there are any updates.

Best regards, Tobias

>
> Best regards, Julian