IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0BF1A017C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0fW4prSZNXAe for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D98A1A0170 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1WnQNY-0004qk-9l for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:37:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:37:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1WnQNY-0004qk-9l@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1WnQNL-0004np-6l for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:37:27 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1WnQNJ-0001gd-Cs for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:37:27 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w61so3216897wes.40 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Mngfzpbz4EYzNGFs1ArBtsSmvSmM28NUm+ImX7GGXiY=; b=JD1jNHFsyJYSXCzao+Ebbz/pVgXqVhtb5Nd1XAlhZGw6vxjfpvITvwQnU61LHLkvlH +CRdO42F19Gg+1wk6XLqSQ+Rb5XYViTcNlfmLFpwYy0Ti9TgkXEz26lGgDTxJpZYLlaN buECvayZV5uf+mo3qfLJW4AbLjMDso2eLY3S8mGDUIk9Jo3yYuyZ1mf/sRW7J2wf+VxT yQtV8kSu5y8q5bZsU7THXN4NlC70DujT/eb7Om3K7ocHlR7zj5LazbiXSHBLCPbY7DRI hnrjw84IHLW1xLceyt2hLYJKdfhyqJEECS8rOHTYDMi5Utiq7hMBgEFsc+l/2wCI+ftS XWNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.93.101 with SMTP id ct5mr15668115wib.23.1400755018861; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.235.163 with HTTP; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.235.163 with HTTP; Thu, 22 May 2014 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgTdF0P6==mPzREK8M5ba_6C48o5u0FGOYrR=2c2iq9hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140520034054.10225.92036.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5905C797-A8E2-417B-94AB-589C174382BA@mnot.net> <CABkgnnWNWUtAe5EfPdpLaDKRug0QuW7ngm-v7t_B3LJSf6fRCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgTdF0P6==mPzREK8M5ba_6C48o5u0FGOYrR=2c2iq9hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 03:36:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUCpPBSoLK+P6wiR6ovivxLAWUvGUcoO9W3-Z84FsO6Lg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "ChanWilliam(陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7ffe51134204f9fab1ba"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.181; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.739, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1WnQNJ-0001gd-Cs f526b463a142e77afd0d9cbf00e10b6c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUCpPBSoLK+P6wiR6ovivxLAWUvGUcoO9W3-Z84FsO6Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/23750
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 May 21, 2014 8:25 PM, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> I don't feel very strongly, but I am not sure where the times for the
operational considerations are coming from. IIRC, HSTS and HPKP use much
longer max-ages. Why does this draft suggest capping at 1 month?

That was a temporary value that never got fixed up.  Mainly because I don't
think that HSTS actually has a recommendation, and that is a closer fit
than HPKP. HPKP suggests 60 days, so maybe a slightly longer value, say 90,
is appropriate.

I'm happy to take suggestions. I'm sure that folks have plenty of paint for
this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email