W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: New header for "Fragment-Scope"?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:44:54 -0500
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <72CB897F-06D2-4C0F-ACC0-A2DE548D7B78@mnot.net>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Hi Roy,

Trying to clarify…

> On 9 Jan 2015, at 3:33 pm, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I think it has nothing to do with HTTP.  

Are you saying that this shouldn’t be a header? “It doesn’t have anything to do with HTTP” could be applied to many, many current headers.

> The request invocation engine
> (e.g., browser) is responsible for determining whether the original
> fragment applies after the request, regardless of zero or more redirects.
> What they should do is tell the fetch algorithm to discard the fragment
> prior to performing retrieval, or at least prior to following a redirect.
> That is an internal implementation concern.

Are you saying that it’s inconceivable that the semantics of fragment combination might be usefully hinted from the server?

> Regardless, adding more bits for new clients won't fix the leak of 
> "sensitive" information on deployed clients. I don't think adding more
> hacks to an already hacked notion of capability URLs is a worthwhile effort.

I’d be interested in feedback from the security community about this.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 17:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:48 UTC