@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
I haven't heard any further response. After a reminder from a Security
AD, I took another look at the spec.
E.g., the current Security Considerations for 428:
The 428 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon
On 2012-01-30 16:05, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Mark,
I don't want to rehash the discussion that we've already had.
Clearly, you prefer brevity while I would prefer education in
this instance.
I can live with your text for status codes 428, 429, and 431. For
511, I don't think it's adequate to just
-nottingham-http-new-status-03
On 2012-01-30 16:05, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Mark,
I don't want to rehash the discussion that we've already had.
Clearly, you prefer brevity while I would prefer education in
this instance.
I can live with your text for status codes 428, 429, and 431
Nottingham; draft-nottingham-http-new-sta...@tools.ietf.org;
sec...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
On 2012-01-30 16:05, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Mark,
I don't want to rehash the discussion that we've already had.
Clearly, you prefer brevity while I
...@tools.ietf.org;
sec...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
I haven't heard any further response. After a reminder from a Security
AD, I took another look at the spec.
E.g., the current Security Considerations for 428:
The 428 status code
I haven't heard any further response. After a reminder from a Security AD, I
took another look at the spec.
E.g., the current Security Considerations for 428:
The 428 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use to prevent
lost update conflicts.
Like many of the status codes,
On 14/01/2012, at 6:59 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I do have a question about the issues raised in Appendix B.
These are all legitimate issues. However, it seems to me
that having status code 511 should help with these. A
browser or non-browser application could recognize status
code 511 as an
Sorry for the delay in responding; just back from holiday.
On 14/01/2012, at 8:26 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Julian,
I'm sure that in your view one sentence is adequate to explain
all the security implications of each status code. However,
you may want to consider that some readers may not
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just
On 2012-01-13 20:59, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG
: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:27 PM
To: Stephen Hanna
Cc: draft-nottingham-http-new-sta...@tools.ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
On 2012-01-13 20:59, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I have reviewed this document as part
11 matches
Mail list logo
