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

I like the idea of the shared registry (option 2). Let me know if there's a
particular way we should reference it in the SMTP STS draft.

/m

--
Mark E. Risher |  Group Product Manager |  risher@google.com |  650-253-3123

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>
>