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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:29:41 +0900
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "uri.w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.szvjvrv5x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:27:50 +0900, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>  
wrote:

>
> 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.

ah, good to know. Thanks.

Regards, Felix.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 14:30:09 UTC

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