W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Errata for The Web Origin Concept

From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:13:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4FDF6FBF.2070003@gondrom.org>
To: annevk@annevk.nl
CC: julian.reschke@gmx.de, w3c@adambarth.com, www-archive@w3.org
On 11/06/12 09:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Tobias Gondrom
> <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>  wrote:
>> IETF has received the request for errata.
> And apparently it has been rejected...
Just fyi: the reason for rejecting it as an errata is only due to 
process criteria on the definition of what an errata is in IETF 
standards process. And this does not fulfill the criteria.
But if you like this to be worked on in any future version of the draft, 
I strongly encourage filing this as an issue in the WG tracker. (having 
said that, fyi RFCs in general are very stable (thats why work so hard 
on getting everything right during the process in the first place) and 
from my experience the probability for revisions of RFCs is fairly low, 
unless there is a strong case for revising.)

>> Best is probably to submit it as an issue in the websec tracker for the
>> origin draft / RFC.
>> (or you can also post it to the websec mailing-list)
> Can someone else do that maybe? I'd like to avoid subscribing to too many lists.
If you think it should be done, please file it, or somebody else.
Otherwise if you don't file it in the tracker, there is still a good 
chance that if the RFC comes up for revising, the authors would look at 
the errata DB and check for anything there, be it accepted or rejected.

>> However, please note that there would only be action on this item if/when
>> RFC6454 gets an update, unless you make a sufficiently strong case for why
>> there needs to be an errata/update now or in the very near future.
> Well, this was done for CORS, but it turns out CORS does not need it
> (it was a design error). Keeping it in is harmful as others may try to
> mistakenly use the outlined pattern.
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 18:13:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:53 GMT