Re: [Uta] STS directive registry: separate or shared?

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chris,

On 14/04/2016 17:54, Chris Newman wrote:
> Right now we have 3 STS proposals: HSTS, SMTP relay STS and MUA STS 
> (DEEP).
>
> HSTS described its extensibility model, but punted on actually 
> creating a registry. A registry covering HSTS would be useful because 
> there’s at least one limited-use directive in the wild in addition to 
> those in the HSTS base spec. MUA STS currently describes an 
> extensibility model and creates a registry just for itself. SMTP relay 
> STS is missing both an extensibility model and registry, although 
> Viktor has made a compelling case that we we want to be minimal on 
> SMTP relay STS directives (at least initially).
>
> There are two ways to move forward:
>
> 1. Each protocol is responsible for it’s own extension model and 
> registry. This has the advantage of getting MUA STS done sooner, but 
> we’ll probably end up with 2 or 3 separate registries with some 
> redundancy and potential for semantic conflicts in STS directives with 
> the same name between protocols.
>
> 2. We create a combined STS registry that includes a 
> protocol-applicability field for each directive. Some directives would 
> be multi-protocol (e.g., max-age may be shared between HSTS and SMTP 
> relay STS), most would be single-protocol initially (that could change 
> later). One advantage to this approach is it gives us a place to 
> include some prose about why STS proposals are different and why 
> different applicability is important. But this would take a bit longer 
> and mean the WG would have another draft. This would make life 
> slightly simpler for SMTP relay STS as it would just have to describe 
> its extensibility model and point to the shared registry. If we do 
> this, I am willing to co-author the shared-registry spec and Jeff 
> Hodges (co-author of HSTS spec) is also willing to co-author the spec.
>
> I lean slightly towards option 2, but we need a WG rough consensus to 
> pursue that option as it’s a fairly significant change to MUA STS. 
> Comments?
>
I think I prefer option 2 or at least I would like to see us try. I am 
happy to help with this.

Best Regards,
Alexey