On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia
<Miguel(_dot_)A(_dot_)Garcia(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel(_dot_)a(_dot_)garcia(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Review Date: 2011-09-05
IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-06
Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.
Nits/editorial comments:
- General: In many places of the document the text speaks about an "HTTP
header". I think it is more accepted to refer to "HTTP header *field*". This
is the terminology widely used in RFC 2616.
I believe this is now fixed. Let me know if you see any missing
"fields" in https://github.com/abarth/websec/blob/master/drafts/origin.xml.
- First paragraph in Section 3.3, add a formal reference to RFC 3986 when
thzt RFC is mentioned.
Fixed.
- Second paragraph in Section 3.4.1:
s/sample/example
Fixed.
- Section 4, bullet point #5 speaks of "idna-canonicalized form". I think it
would be nice to have a formal reference to a proper document. Is this
reference RFC 3490, RFC 5890, or another one?
Fixed as Peter suggests.
- Section 10.1. There is a strange way to refer to "Unicode Technical
Standard #46". I think it should be promoted to a regular reference, similar
to how [Unicode52] is referred to. So, perhaps this should become
[Unicode46].
The 46 is a different sort of thing than the 52 (the former is a TR
number and the later is a Unicode version number). I've changed the
reference to be UnicodeTR46, which hopefully will avoid any confusion.
Thanks for the review!
Adam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf