Doc #76728 [Opn->Spm]: VIPADA SANGKAEW

Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76728&edit=1 ID: 76728 Updated by: peehaa@php.net Reported by: vipadasangkaew at gmail dot com Summary: VIPADA SANGKAEW -Status: Open +Status: Spam Type: Documentation Problem Package: *General Issues Operating System: weekend._CONFIRMING._To PHP Version: Next Minor Version Block user comment: N Private report: N Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-08-10 17:58:56] vipadasangkaew at gmail dot com Description: ------------ --- From manual page: http://www.php.net/language.variables.external --- Please find minutes at https://www.w3.org/2018/08/06-aria-apg-minutes.html James Nurthen | Accessibility Engineer | Adobe | p. 415.832.2734 | c. 415.987.1918 | nurthen@adobe.com On 8/3/18, 1:30 PM, "Matt King" <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote: Monday, 6 August 2018 ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force Time: 10:00 AM US Pacific, 1:00 PM US Eastern duration: 60 minutes IRC server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #aria-apg Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/August-6%2C-2018-Meeting Topics: * Review APG 1.1 Release 3 Plan * Handling invalid spinbutton input * WCAG requirements for tooltip * aria-controls and aria-expanded on tabs * Purpose and intended effect of separators in menus * Future meetings and other business ------------------------------------------------------- To join the WebEx audio conference, you may call in via phone or join the online meeting and request a call back to any number. US toll call-in: +1-617-324-0000 Access code (meeting number): 640 859 469 Mobile Auto Dial:+1-617-324-0000,,,640859469# To join the online meeting: 1. Go to https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=ma880be53415dc3d751387cd2fcc47cb7 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password. You may ask for it on the IRC channel if you do not know it. 4. Click "Join". WebEx support: 1. Go to https://mit.webex.com/mit/mc 2. From the left navigation bar, choose "Support". Test script: --------------- Thanks for the feedback! I've addressed this in https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c2ae923f03a25432c145292b0ceda5f99f750e22, with a couple clarifications inline. On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 6:06 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: Hi, The document is well written, but I have a short list of issues I would like to discuss: 2.1. Response Header Field Syntax Expect-CT = #expect-ct-directive expect-ct-directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ] directive-name = token directive-value = token / quoted-string Figure 1: Syntax of the Expect-CT header field Optional white space ("OWS") is used as defined in Section 3.2.3 of I don't see "OWS" used above. Should it be used around the "=" character? It looks like you've copied syntanx from RFC 6797, which used old HTTP ABNF with "implied *LWS" rule. So you need to update it to explicitly insert OWS. (It is already a part of #expect-ct-directive construct though.) This was leftover from mashing up RFC 6797 and 7469, and I think it's actually just not needed at all anymore (no OWS is intended around the "="). 2.1.1. The report-uri Directive The first mention of HSTS in Section 2.1.1 needs a reference to [RFC6797]. UAs SHOULD limit the rate at which they send reports. For example, it is unnecessary to send the same report to the same "report-uri" more than once. "More than once" in which period. Ever? I think you need to elaborate/clarify here. In Section 3.1: * The "serialized_sct" key, with a string value. If the value of the "version" key is "1", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized Which base64 alphabet? There is one in section 4 and another one in section 5 of that RFC. Is this really needed? Happy to include it for clarity's sake, but Section 5 of RFC 4648 already says: This encoding may be referred to as "base64url". This encoding should not be regarded as the same as the "base64" encoding and should not be referred to as only "base64". Unless clarified otherwise, "base64" refers to the base 64 in the previous section. "SignedCertificateTimestamp" structure from Section 3.2 of [RFC6962]. If the value of the "version" key is "2", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized As above. "TransItem" structure representing the SCT, as defined in Section 4.5 of [I-D.ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis]. 6.1. Header Field Registry This document registers the "Expect-CT" header field in the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers [4]. Header field name: Expect-CT Applicable protocol: http Status: standard As per 3864, I think this field has to have the value "experimental": Status: Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic", "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type and status of the primary document in which it is defined. For non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for registration. Best Regards, Alexey Expected result: ---------------- Hi, The document is well written, but I have a short list of issues I would like to discuss: 2.1. Response Header Field Syntax Expect-CT = #expect-ct-directive expect-ct-directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ] directive-name = token directive-value = token / quoted-string Figure 1: Syntax of the Expect-CT header field Optional white space ("OWS") is used as defined in Section 3.2.3 of I don't see "OWS" used above. Should it be used around the "=" character? It looks like you've copied syntanx from RFC 6797, which used old HTTP ABNF with "implied *LWS" rule. So you need to update it to explicitly insert OWS. (It is already a part of #expect-ct-directive construct though.) 2.1.1. The report-uri Directive The first mention of HSTS in Section 2.1.1 needs a reference to [RFC6797]. UAs SHOULD limit the rate at which they send reports. For example, it is unnecessary to send the same report to the same "report-uri" more than once. "More than once" in which period. Ever? I think you need to elaborate/clarify here. In Section 3.1: * The "serialized_sct" key, with a string value. If the value of the "version" key is "1", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized Which base64 alphabet? There is one in section 4 and another one in section 5 of that RFC. "SignedCertificateTimestamp" structure from Section 3.2 of [RFC6962]. If the value of the "version" key is "2", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized As above. "TransItem" structure representing the SCT, as defined in Section 4.5 of [I-D.ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis]. 6.1. Header Field Registry This document registers the "Expect-CT" header field in the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers [4]. Header field name: Expect-CT Applicable protocol: http Status: standard As per 3864, I think this field has to have the value "experimental": Status: Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic", "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type and status of the primary document in which it is defined. For non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for registration. Best Regards, Alexey Thanks for the feedback! I've addressed this in https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c2ae923f03a25432c145292b0ceda5f99f750e22, with a couple clarifications inline. On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 6:06 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: Hi, The document is well written, but I have a short list of issues I would like to discuss: 2.1. Response Header Field Syntax Expect-CT = #expect-ct-directive expect-ct-directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ] directive-name = token directive-value = token / quoted-string Figure 1: Syntax of the Expect-CT header field Optional white space ("OWS") is used as defined in Section 3.2.3 of I don't see "OWS" used above. Should it be used around the "=" character? It looks like you've copied syntanx from RFC 6797, which used old HTTP ABNF with "implied *LWS" rule. So you need to update it to explicitly insert OWS. (It is already a part of #expect-ct-directive construct though.) This was leftover from mashing up RFC 6797 and 7469, and I think it's actually just not needed at all anymore (no OWS is intended around the "="). 2.1.1. The report-uri Directive The first mention of HSTS in Section 2.1.1 needs a reference to [RFC6797]. UAs SHOULD limit the rate at which they send reports. For example, it is unnecessary to send the same report to the same "report-uri" more than once. "More than once" in which period. Ever? I think you need to elaborate/clarify here. In Section 3.1: * The "serialized_sct" key, with a string value. If the value of the "version" key is "1", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized Which base64 alphabet? There is one in section 4 and another one in section 5 of that RFC. Is this really needed? Happy to include it for clarity's sake, but Section 5 of RFC 4648 already says: This encoding may be referred to as "base64url". This encoding should not be regarded as the same as the "base64" encoding and should not be referred to as only "base64". Unless clarified otherwise, "base64" refers to the base 64 in the previous section. "SignedCertificateTimestamp" structure from Section 3.2 of [RFC6962]. If the value of the "version" key is "2", the UA MUST set this value to the base64 encoded [RFC4648] serialized As above. "TransItem" structure representing the SCT, as defined in Section 4.5 of [I-D.ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis]. 6.1. Header Field Registry This document registers the "Expect-CT" header field in the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers [4]. Header field name: Expect-CT Applicable protocol: http Status: standard As per 3864, I think this field has to have the value "experimental": Status: Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic", "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type and status of the primary document in which it is defined. For non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for registration. Best Regards, Alexey Actual result: -------------- Please find minutes at https://www.w3.org/2018/08/06-aria-apg-minutes.html James Nurthen | Accessibility Engineer | Adobe | p. 415.832.2734 | c. 415.987.1918 | nurthen@adobe.com On 8/3/18, 1:30 PM, "Matt King" <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote: Monday, 6 August 2018 ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force Time: 10:00 AM US Pacific, 1:00 PM US Eastern duration: 60 minutes IRC server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #aria-apg Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/August-6%2C-2018-Meeting Topics: * Review APG 1.1 Release 3 Plan * Handling invalid spinbutton input * WCAG requirements for tooltip * aria-controls and aria-expanded on tabs * Purpose and intended effect of separators in menus * Future meetings and other business ------------------------------------------------------- To join the WebEx audio conference, you may call in via phone or join the online meeting and request a call back to any number. US toll call-in: +1-617-324-0000 Access code (meeting number): 640 859 469 Mobile Auto Dial:+1-617-324-0000,,,640859469# To join the online meeting: 1. Go to https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=ma880be53415dc3d751387cd2fcc47cb7 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password. You may ask for it on the IRC channel if you do not know it. 4. Click "Join". WebEx support:"VIPADA SANGKAEW,ID:1-311-100-10101-8,THAILAND,(+66)92-326-4355,"VIPADASANGKAEW@GMAIL.COM". 1. Go to https://mit.webex.com/mit/mc 2. From the left navigation bar, choose "Support". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76728&edit=1