IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BCB130DF3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sz9df6TRPrcY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46463130E89 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1g089m-0002wu-Ch for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:38:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:38:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1g089m-0002wu-Ch@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1g089j-0002v5-A3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:38:19 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1g089j-00078F-6U for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:38:19 +0000
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1g07px-0006t5-CD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:17:53 +0000
Received: from raven-v6.nostrum.com ([2001:470:d:1130::1] helo=nostrum.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1g07pv-0007lc-VK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:17:53 +0000
Received: from [10.0.1.95] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w8CGHQVN074892 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:17:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.95]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <C5873087-B8C2-4AF1-A09A-F4803D2A2079@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_701C4951-E358-4A4C-90E8-DA282616C640"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:17:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <344BD18A-D940-41E3-89C5-C532EA2AE9FD@mnot.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <153671839811.16757.7575392548000373864.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A65E3A2C-1F09-4BB0-9D86-2CD9EF4D4219@mnot.net> <054ABDF3-83EF-46B3-ADC2-B9EF6A9D920C@nostrum.com> <344BD18A-D940-41E3-89C5-C532EA2AE9FD@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1g07pv-0007lc-VK ddee8a07307345228c61450abaca94c6
X-caa-id: 3637bbf803
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/C5873087-B8C2-4AF1-A09A-F4803D2A2079@nostrum.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35905
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


> On Sep 12, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Sep 2018, at 9:06 am, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Just one comment-question :-)
>>>> 
> 
>>>> §2.1.3: The guidance for max-age in the security considerations section
>>>> suggests 30 days is a good value. But the directive is specified in seconds.
>>>> Does that make sense? Would a 1 second max-age ever be reasonable? Or even 30
>>>> days + 1 second?
>>> 
>>> Pretty much everything in HTTP is done at second granularity; deviating from that would be odd IMO.
>> 
>> I certainly don’t have all the HTTP uses of time intervals loaded in my head--are time intervals on the order of “1 month” commonly used elsewhere?
> 
> In that sort of syntax, no. The desired semantic is often something like that, but the syntax is almost invariably integer-number-of-seconds.

I’m not entirely sure I follow, but I think you are saying that it is common to have month-long time intervals that are specified in seconds. Is that correct?

In any case, it’s a non-blocking comment. If there’s good reason (e.g. “the parsers all already understand seconds”) to do this in seconds I’m okay with it.


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email