W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: CORS Last Call status/plans? [Was: Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:20:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4BCC90D3.7070709@gmx.de>
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 19.04.2010 19:06, Tyler Close wrote:
> ...
> 4.2 Response Header Filtering
>
> Some HTTP servers construct an HTTP response in multiple stages. In
> such a deployment, an earlier stage might produce a uniform response
> which is augmented with additional response headers by a later stage
> that does not understand a uniform response header. This later stage
> might add response headers with the expectation they will be protected
> by the Same Origin Policy. The developer of the earlier stage might be
> unable to update the program logic of the later stage. To accommodate
> this deployment scenario, user-agents can filter out response headers
> on behalf of the server before exposing a uniform response to the
> requesting content. If the response includes a Uniform-Headers header
> with a value "*", no response header filtering is required; otherwise,
> the user-agent MUST filter out all response headers other than the
> following:
>
>      * Content-Encoding
>      * Content-Language
>      * Content-Length
>      * Content-Location
>      * Content-MD5
>      * Content-Range
>      * Content-Type
>      * Expires
>      * Last-Modified
>      * Location
>      * Warning
>      * any header whose name is the value of a Uniform-Headers header
> on the response
>
>        Uniform-Headers = "Uniform-Headers" ":" ( "*" | #field-name )
>
> The default members of the above whitelist include response entity
> headers defined by [HTTP], plus the Location and Warning headers. The

Why are you ignoring other headers in the permanent registry? Why only 
allow entity headers? What the problem, for instance, with "Allow" (RFC 
2616), "Allow-Patch" (RFC 5749) or "Dav" (RFC 4918)?

> default part of the whitelist does not include: headers used for
> credential authentication, such as WWW-Authenticate; nor headers that
> might reveal private network configuration information, such as Via;

What's the rational for stripping all of the information in Via?

> nor caching headers, such as Age, which provide explicit information
> about requests made on behalf of other requesting content.
> """

What's the problem with Age, please clarify?

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 17:21:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT