W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:34:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4C0F8A42.4030503@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>, "Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)" <yngve@opera.com>, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@google.com>, Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
On 09.06.2010 08:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 02:48:20 +0200, Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera
> Software ASA) <yngve@opera.com> wrote:
>> Well, there is actually a fourth choice: Ask the user (Yes, I know,
>> the user will most likely know just as little as the client about what
>> those header were intended to mean, and the opportunities for social
>> engineering attacks will be legion).
> There's also a fifth. Based on implementation experience we can probably
> figure out what the scenario for headers should be. You might end up
> with special cases, but at least you know it can be implemented and you
> can give advice for future clients so they will no longer have to
> reverse engineer the market leader.

As far as I can tell from the data Bill provided, there is no general 
agreement on how this needs to be done.

That being said; a document explaining that widely-used UAs do, and also 
pointing out potential security problems would be a good thing to have. 
I just do not see why this would need to be part of the protocol definition.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 12:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC