Mark Nottingham wrote:

Comments:

* "It should not be possible to perform cross-site non-safe operations, i.e., HTTP operations except for GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS, without a method check requestbeing performed." -- this specifies a solution in the requirements.

I agree the link should be removed. And I guess saying "without first checking that the server is ok with this" might be more generic wording?

* "Must be deployable to IIS and Apache without requiring actions by the server administrator in a configuration where the user can upload static files, run serverside scripts (such as PHP, ASP, and CGI), control HTTP headers, and control authorization, but only do this for URIs under a given set of subdirectories on the server." This is incredibly specific; neither p3p.xml nor robots.txt supports the last condition, and yet that hasn't stopped their deployment. This also isn't motivated by any of the use cases. I dispute that this is a real requirement.

Unfortunately the part of being specific was requested. I would have much rather said that it should be deployable in typical server configurations.

Regarding only being able to control responses under certain directories, I think this is a pretty common setup. That's the configuration we used at my university where I could only control resources under /~e97_jsi, and it's the case at work where I can only control resources under /~sicking.

* "It should be possible to issue methods other than GET to the server, such as POST and DELETE." Add to this: "The solution must not unduly penalise use of methods other than GET, e.g., with performance degradation. Likewise, it must not penalise use of a particular style of URI, or the use of a large number of URIs."

Sounds good to me. The only thing is that it sounds like it's ok to penalize GET requests. Maybe instead adding a new requirement:

The solution must not unduly penalise cross-site requests with performance degradation. Likewise, it must not unduly penalise use of a particular style of URI, or the use of a large number of URIs.

/ Jonas

Reply via email to