Just on the new point: - In 2.2 you say: "(1) the processing rules for HTTP > request messages received over a secure transport (e.g. > authenticated, non-anonymous TLS); " > > Should the "e.g." be an "i.e." ? It's probably fine either > way but just wondered. >
It seems to me that "for example" is right, allowing for other possible secure transports (perhaps IPSec, perhaps something that comes later). The concept is that it needs to be secured, and the example is apt. Barry
_______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
