Re: Comments on draft-stark-expect-ct-00

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Thu, 10 November 2016 22:00 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 B337112965A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:00:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritter.vg
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 hFsigmsoE1DB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5108C129739 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c4xLL-0002I5-3a for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:57:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:57:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c4xLL-0002I5-3a@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tom@ritter.vg>) id 1c4xLF-0002HK-Ij for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:57:05 +0000
Received: from mail-ua0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <tom@ritter.vg>) id 1c4xL9-00063O-7I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:57:00 +0000
Received: by mail-ua0-f176.google.com with SMTP id b35so212896691uaa.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:56:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SRVwohEWMCq1CSPfMlkayApacKKQSphnbUzHu2N83iA=; b=iSyuCQdi7+8+3brEFi6yxPqxsup8H0BhDgCdSaz36D8ivNcMTqtdd3BCjlREQD3/3v b/vpVpCMpT2Mc+i22cllAG6RclsE80Gd7lixhA5JleADUbXWSw3feD+5Bj7fR+bV4jiJ URN171x1GfoPpHRXtEnZx3S7aN3hHL/7iky84=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SRVwohEWMCq1CSPfMlkayApacKKQSphnbUzHu2N83iA=; b=MIuiakDtdgt5oRwzFKl+WqacrLrojjY6kUVzVumcNQi7VLnAfyR/huNtYU7U1sNc/Y IZO4GHJDa6AwTy9IPc6/JQN5D97XXUL2/Be3KqFGb/GBQWeZP755xhhVJ2xBlGl9oy33 ggt/MBPQcl7sEYqcVvvL/6zPyK8Rld2y7ofRq/izdl6j26B3Uf8/VUosxkRjkQnztQ6S z91c62jWdeu1YegMqiFoXPbYzi3CPBAghGqnS+53y5py7VP0LTPL5+mgVxwJB8rMKjlY qxNfAh0vULrhZWZ3n3ifTIVqCxx2mNEp24E8Z9KMcSjsYc2RIyoL3rtkDDgRdFaIbee7 CpDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveenZLd3n9q7iu/pLB9qzVN2mjvJxe5h3GC88nQaLSZIKas+oTACeNwTDV1uAWHbdD2uz6zLHJAcW88Z5iQ
X-Received: by 10.176.7.73 with SMTP id h67mr5080904uah.116.1478814993086; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:56:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.76.205 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:56:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMGWoXgd+O5CS44XKRKZYkXy7guB5hcoFL7ptkwcSSsDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBMGWoXgd+O5CS44XKRKZYkXy7guB5hcoFL7ptkwcSSsDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:56:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+cU71mdSVY0c11+2otP2YV-2KChQWw_Ap0iw3L=7xdJ+s7PRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.217.176; envelope-from=tom@ritter.vg; helo=mail-ua0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.322, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.899, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c4xL9-00063O-7I 4a47fa910411940437d45d0fbd944007
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-stark-expect-ct-00
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+cU71mdSVY0c11+2otP2YV-2KChQWw_Ap0iw3L=7xdJ+s7PRw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32861
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9 November 2016 at 18:57, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> S 2.1.3.
> What's the rationale for not caching the directive in report-only mode.
> If the purpose of the report-only mode is to tell you when you have
> nonconforming servers, then don't you want to be able to turn it on
> on server A and detect hwen server B is broken? That seems like it
> doesn't work if you don't cache.

I may have more comments, but ++ here. I would like to avoid repeating
the same situation we had with this behavior not being in HPKP.

-tom