IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sun, 03 July 2011 09:54 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 A72E221F878A for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 02:54:43 -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 v2C7dmwH6hJl for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A637021F8789 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so4734100iye.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.128.199 with SMTP id l7mr4293334ibs.150.1309686881351; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:41 -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 x13sm2926335ibh.33.2011.07.03.02.54.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so4735422iwn.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.6.25 with SMTP id 25mr4589134ibx.6.1309686880369; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.50.16 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 02:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E0D0700.6020805@lookout.net>
References: <BANLkTik1AnXaWfPEM+PtB8ctqU_mahkWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E0CFA2B.7070205@lookout.net> <BANLkTikgZBSs7NZpb+o362=u+YJbEVBzkA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimN3tdBeX01hHaSbuBOpOK0QJ5Twg@mail.gmail.com> <4E0D0700.6020805@lookout.net>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_PP=hNg7K44MEU8mCGK53iWqZzeEVov4iZStkf=+F5Vg@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: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:54:43 -0000

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net> wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 3:51 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> 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
>
> Oh duh, I feel silly.  Editorial nit - maybe a minor change to make the
> terms (or tense) match would help.  Keeping with section 2.3's defined term
> "idna-canonicalized" then the sentence in section 4 step 5 would read:
>
>  "Let uri-host be the idna-canonicalized form of the host component of the
> URI."

Fixed.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email