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

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Felix Sasaki

Hi Martin, cc'ing to [hidden email],

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.

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?

Best regards,

Felix

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Martin J. Dürst

At 16:26 05/11/07, Felix Sasaki wrote:
 >Hi Martin, cc'ing to [hidden email],

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.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Felix Sasaki

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:27:50 +0900, Martin Duerst <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

>
> At 16:26 05/11/07, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>  >Hi Martin, cc'ing to [hidden email],
>
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Problems with mailto-bis-01 (was: Minor issue on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-01.txt)

Frank Ellermann
In reply to this post by Felix Sasaki

Felix Sasaki wrote:

> The security considerations of [RFC3986], [RFC3490],
> [RFC3491], and also apply. [RFC3987]

Already reported seven moths ago here (+ later pointers)
in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/429/raw> :

| > The security considerations of [STD66], [RFC3490], and also
| > apply. [RFC3987]
|
| s/apply. [RFC3987]/[RFC3987] apply./

Other points in this old review are apparently also not yet
addressed by the new draft, e.g. <urlc> is used but undefined:

| >        hname       = *urlc
| >        hvalue      = *urlc
|
| RfC 2368 and your draft use "urlc" without proper syntax or
| explanation, please add something like this:

(snipping my old proposal, here's my latest unconfirmed guess:)
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
    urlc = %x21-3B / %x3D / %x3F-5B / %x5D / %x5F / %x61-7A

The draft is still far from ready, it doesn't answer any of my
open questions.  Bruce also posted a list here.  Bye, Frank