- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:18:19 +0100
- To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21.01.2020 09:04, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 21.01.2020 08:46, Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >> Section 2.3 says: >> >>> The term "public suffix" is defined in a note in Section 5.3 of >>> [RFC6265] as "a domain that is controlled by a public registry", and >>> are also known as "effective top-level domains" (eTLDs). For >>> example, "site.example"'s public suffix is "com". >> >> This confuses me greatly. Is this a typo? Surely "site.example"'s public >> suffice is "example" ? How is that related to "com" ? >> >> The following paragraph seems to have got it right. > > Seems to be an editorial mistake when addressing > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1017>. > > Now another question is why this references RFC6265??? (That problem > goes back further). -> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1033> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 08:18:27 UTC