[dispatch] Format underlying security.txt
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 18 June 2021 11:07 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1C33A104E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hfTo0U4gUPU for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7F63A104D for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G5x2Q26Vwz2xHS; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:06:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 645707213.838184-a8448b895aab58245978c7a744ec84bd
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:06:54 +0200
Message-Id: <46C20458-2EFE-4A85-ADDD-A22AFE77FB1E@tzi.org>
To: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Z8Pkxm-8F80emn-oUf6kL7FmPsA>
Subject: [dispatch] Format underlying security.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:07:00 -0000
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-foudil-securitytxt defines a format and semantics for /security.txt on web servers (I know, I’m simplifying here). There are now knockoffs like draft-ring-analyticstxt that seem to define a format that is almost, but not entirely, unlike security.txt. Do we need a spec that defines an RFC822-like text format for key-value pairs like this (because, clearly, we don’t have enough text formats to choose from)? I would consider this preferable to setting up a maze of little knock-off formats all different. Grüße, Carsten
- [dispatch] Format underlying security.txt Carsten Bormann