Re: Patent disclosure for UM? [Was: Patent disclosure for UniMess? [Was: [cors] Uniform Messaging, a CSRF resistant profile of CORS]]
On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:44 AM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Dan Connolly conno...@w3.org wrote: Would you two (and anyone else that contributed to the UniMess proposal) please make a patent disclosure for your proposal? -Art Barstow Are you asking them to say we know of no relevant patents? ... I know of no relevant patents. Dan - Mark answered the question I was asking; sorry my question wasn't more clear. And Arthur, while we appreciate the attempt at humor, UniMess is not our favorite abbreviation ;). Among ourselves, we've been using UM. Hence the change of subject. I wasn't trying to be humorous Mark, so sorry about that - UM it is. -Art Barstow
Re: Patent disclosure for UniMess? [Was: [cors] Uniform Messaging, a CSRF resistant profile of CORS]
Hi Art, For the Status of this Document section, I just copied the text recommended at: http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html I did not mean to obfuscate any patent disclosure issues. I personally do not know of any relevant patents. --Tyler On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Mark, Tyler, *IF* this proposal was a WG document, its Status of the Document section would include a patent disclosure requirement like the one in CORS: [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20090804/ An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. ]] Would you two (and anyone else that contributed to the UniMess proposal) please make a patent disclosure for your proposal? -Art Barstow On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote: I made some minor edits and formatting improvements to the document sent out on Friday. The new version is attached. If you read the prior version, there's no need to review the new one. If you're just getting started, use the attached copy. Thanks, --Tyler On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: MarkM and I have produced a draft specification for the GuestXHR functionality we've been advocating. The W3C style specification document is attached. We look forward to any feedback on it. We agree with others that GuestXHR was not a good name and so have named the proposal Uniform Messaging for reasons elaborated in the specification. To parallel the CORS separation of policy from API, this first document is the policy specification with an XMLHttpRequest-like API yet to follow. Abstract: This document defines a mechanism to enable requests that are independent of the client's context. Using this mechanism, a client can engage in cross-site messaging without the danger of Cross-Site-Request-Forgery and similar attacks that abuse the cookies and other HTTP headers that form a client's context. For example, code from customer.example.org can use this mechanism to send requests to resources determined by service.example.com without further need to protect the client's context. Thanks, --Tyler -- Waterken News: Capability security on the Web http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.htmldraft.html -- Waterken News: Capability security on the Web http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Patent disclosure for UniMess? [Was: [cors] Uniform Messaging, a CSRF resistant profile of CORS]
Mark, Tyler, *IF* this proposal was a WG document, its Status of the Document section would include a patent disclosure requirement like the one in CORS: [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20090804/ An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. ]] Would you two (and anyone else that contributed to the UniMess proposal) please make a patent disclosure for your proposal? -Art Barstow On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote: I made some minor edits and formatting improvements to the document sent out on Friday. The new version is attached. If you read the prior version, there's no need to review the new one. If you're just getting started, use the attached copy. Thanks, --Tyler On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: MarkM and I have produced a draft specification for the GuestXHR functionality we've been advocating. The W3C style specification document is attached. We look forward to any feedback on it. We agree with others that GuestXHR was not a good name and so have named the proposal Uniform Messaging for reasons elaborated in the specification. To parallel the CORS separation of policy from API, this first document is the policy specification with an XMLHttpRequest-like API yet to follow. Abstract: This document defines a mechanism to enable requests that are independent of the client's context. Using this mechanism, a client can engage in cross-site messaging without the danger of Cross-Site-Request-Forgery and similar attacks that abuse the cookies and other HTTP headers that form a client's context. For example, code from customer.example.org can use this mechanism to send requests to resources determined by service.example.com without further need to protect the client's context. Thanks, --Tyler -- Waterken News: Capability security on the Web http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.htmldraft.html
