Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

> As for the "should CORS exist" discussion, I'll bow out of those until
> we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
> way or another, or genuinely new information is provided which would
> affect such a decision (for the record, I don't think I've seen any
> new information provided since last fall's TPAC).

exactly -- I don't see this thread getting anywhere.

cheers
devdatta

On 12 May 2010 13:13, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Devdatta <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While most of the discussion in this thread is just repeats of
>> previous discussions, I think Tyler makes a good (and new) point in
>> that the current CORS draft still has no mention of the possible
>> security problems that Tyler talks about. The current draft's security
>> section
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#security
>>
>> is ridiculous considering the amount of discussion that has taken
>> place on this issue on this mailing list.
>>
>> Before going to rec, I believe Anne needs to substantially improve
>> this section - based on stuff from maybe Maciej's presentation - which
>> I found really informative. He could also cite UMP as a possible
>> option for those worried about security.
>
> I agree that the security section in CORS needs to be improved.
>
> As for the "should CORS exist" discussion, I'll bow out of those until
> we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
> way or another, or genuinely new information is provided which would
> affect such a decision (for the record, I don't think I've seen any
> new information provided since last fall's TPAC).
>
> / Jonas
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 20:16:07 UTC