Re: ORIGIN - suggested changes

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:23 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2 February 2017 at 10:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> I don't buy the argument that removal itself adds complexity. Implementations already need to remember what origins they received a 421 for, so they already have the concept of origin set removal.
> 
> Well, you just established why it might be unnecessary.  The gain here
> is in the client not sending a request to the wrong place.  But if
> this is rare enough, then that cost is probably bearable.

Right, but the whole point of ORIGIN is to avoid those situations. 


> The "everything except those" case doesn't concern me that much.
>  Iknow it's relatively common, but it is fairly rare that the set of
> origins that are used is not easily enumerable, or incrementally
> discoverable.

Spoken like a true browser vendor :) 

It'd be good to get a bit more data here from server-side folks. Anyone share this concern? I note that Nick seems to be OK with it.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 01:31:24 UTC