Re: Re: [RFC][VOTE] Add validation functions to filter module

Hi Pierre, On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2016 10:36 AM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > >> I don't mind suspend vote for a while to resolve issues if there >> should be changes in the RFC. I also don't mind adding missing >> features, e.g. helpful error messages when exception is disabled, to >> my todo list. BTW, I'll document basic idea of secure coding and >> emphasize how it should be done, so misuse would be few. > > There is no such thing as suspended vote. The vote has to restart if there > are changes. Thank you. I'll restart vote if I have to make changes, other than more items in discussion section. Anyone would change votes if I rename functions to avoid possible confusions? There is one opinion for better names so far. It seems either "People misunderstand secure coding" and/or "People consider validation codes should be in userland fully". (Or "No more additions for filter module"?) Although I do think repetitive validations for browser's request headers/inputs in userland is awfully inefficient, efficiency is not 1st priority of security anyway. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net