W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Minor issue on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-01.txt

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:27:50 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20051107182023.0686c060@localhost>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: "uri.w3.org" <uri@w3.org>

At 16:26 05/11/07, Felix Sasaki wrote:
 >Hi Martin, cc'ing to uri@w3.org,

Hi Felix,

 >I saw a minor issue in
 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-01.txt:
 >
 >The security considerations of [RFC3986], [RFC3490], [RFC3491], and also
 >apply. [RFC3987]
 >
 >should mayb be
 >
 >The security considerations of [RFC3986], [RFC3490], [RFC3491], and
 >[RFC3987] also apply.

Good catch. Hidden in my editing version by an otherwise very
convenient stylesheet.

 >Also, I am wondering about this from text from RFC 3987:
 >The security considerations discussed in [RFC3986] also apply to IRIs. In
 >addition, RFC 3987 cites 3940/1.
 >
 >Would it then not be enough to cite the security conciderations from 3987?
 >Am I missing something, which is not in RFC 3987 cited from 3986 / 3490/1?
 >Or is it just normal to have such overlaps in citations?

Well, strictly speaking, it may be enough. But especially for security
considerations, it's much better to have direct references, in particular
because these considerations apply directly.

Regards,   Martin. 
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 10:21:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC