IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-origin-02

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.com>
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 3729511E81C2 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 g-sbqcj9JOMt for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79BE11E8075 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2965472iwn.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.142.7 with SMTP id q7mr2642286icu.293.1309474324175; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hw7sm2620223icc.3.2011.06.30.15.52.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2965458iwn.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.207.170 with SMTP id fy42mr2274333ibb.36.1309474323104; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.11.75 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikgZBSs7NZpb+o362=u+YJbEVBzkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTik1AnXaWfPEM+PtB8ctqU_mahkWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E0CFA2B.7070205@lookout.net> <BANLkTikgZBSs7NZpb+o362=u+YJbEVBzkA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:51:33 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimN3tdBeX01hHaSbuBOpOK0QJ5Twg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-origin-02
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:52:05 -0000

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net> wrote:
>> In section 4 step 5 what was intended by "idna-canonicalization"?
>>
>>    5.  Let uri-host be the idna-canonicalization of the host component
>>        of the URI.
>>
>> Are implementers to choose whether to apply IDNA2003, IDNA2008, or TR46 in
>> determining the canonical form?  If so should the reference to section 10.1
>> be made here?
>
> We should reference 10.1.  This tail isn't going to wag the IDNA dog.

Actually, I misspoke.  The idna-canonicalization is a defined
algorithm in the spec (which eventually references 10.1).  I need to
go through and make sure all the reference point to the right things.

Adam

v2.36.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status