W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-04.txt

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>
Message-ID: <958fae69-7660-85b0-59ee-8088c7c545a6@gmx.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 January 2020 08:18:28 UTC