Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:00:20 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2011-09-05
IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-06

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Nits/editorial comments:

- General: In many places of the document the text speaks about an "HTTP 
header". I think it is more accepted to refer to "HTTP header *field*". 
This is the terminology widely used in RFC 2616.

- First paragraph in Section 3.3, add a formal reference to RFC 3986 when 
thzt RFC is mentioned.

- Second paragraph in Section 3.4.1:
   s/sample/example

- Section 4, bullet point #5 speaks of "idna-canonicalized form". I think 
it would be nice to have a formal reference to a proper document. Is this 
reference RFC 3490, RFC 5890, or another one?

- Section 10.1. There is a strange way to refer to "Unicode Technical 
Standard #46". I think it should be promoted to a regular reference, 
similar to how [Unicode52] is referred to. So, perhaps this should become 
[Unicode46].

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:11:17 -0700

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> header". I think it is more accepted to refer to "HTTP header *field*". This
> is the terminology widely used in RFC 2616.

I believe this is now fixed.  Let me know if you see any missing
"fields" in https://github.com/abarth/websec/blob/master/drafts/origin.xml.

> - First paragraph in Section 3.3, add a formal reference to RFC 3986 when

Fixed.

> - Second paragraph in Section 3.4.1:

Fixed.

> - Section 4, bullet point #5 speaks of "idna-canonicalized form". I think it
> would be nice to have a formal reference to a proper document. Is this

Fixed as Peter suggests.

> Standard #46". I think it should be promoted to a regular reference, similar
> to how [Unicode52] is referred to. So, perhaps this should become
> [Unicode46].

The 46 is a different sort of thing than the 52 (the former is a TR
number and the later is a Unicode version number).  I've changed the
reference to be UnicodeTR46, which hopefully will avoid any confusion.

Thanks for the review!
Adam