Re: [websec] #14: Effective Request URI definition issues

[websec issue tracker]

#14: Effective Request URI definition issues

Changes (by jeff.hodges@…):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed


-- 
-+-
 Reporter:   |   Owner:  draft-ietf-websec-strict-
  jeff.hodges@…  |  transport-sec@…
 Type:  defect   |  Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor|   Milestone:
Component:  strict-  | Version:  2.0
  transport-sec  |  Resolution:  fixed
 Severity:  -|
 Keywords:   |
-+-

Ticket URL: 
websec 

___
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec

[websec] #14: Effective Request URI definition issues

[websec issue tracker]

#14: Effective Request URI definition issues

 https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg00473.html:

 On 2011-08-06 01:34, =JeffH wrote:

 ...
 12. Removed any and all dependencies on
 [I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15], instead depending
 on [RFC2616] only. Fixes issue ticket #12
 .
 ...

 Not sure this is a good idea.

 The current text copies a known bug from draft-ietf-
 httpbis-p1-messaging-15 (see
 ).  [ the HTTP
 method in the example should
 OPTIONS rather than GET ]

 Also, the ABNF claims it's based on RFC 2616's definitions, but mentions
 RFC 3986 in ABNF comments. This needs to be checked.

-- 
---+
 Reporter:  jeff.hodges@…  |   Owner:  
draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec@… 
 Type:  defect |  Status:  new  

 Priority:  minor  |   Milestone:   

Component:  strict-transport-sec   | Version:  2.0  

 Severity:  -  |Keywords:   

---+

Ticket URL: 
websec 

___
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec