Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

=JeffH <> Thu, 06 September 2012 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DEE21F863B for <>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYNA4urAvXr2 for <>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a7]) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 3480D21F8653 for <>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10227 invoked by uid 0); 6 Sep 2012 23:38:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 6 Sep 2012 23:38:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Od1iREY9KveT5A8kmqBREM5KYuVHaBe/3fd9EOLGn0M=; b=acnRWagyKcasdqrKYcFjiC+6J9o50EygFdmyJFiZnDIffR9w4j73nFdpvfDBwZYfczc0el/lHjGVrS9wCeKzQT1Ius/czDZ9ml5gAu82yjqGg8a2Rx0q5wNPRfOxth9D;
Received: from [] (port=57085 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1T9leT-0006hh-2F for; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:38:25 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:38:23 -0700
From: =JeffH <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF WebSec WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:38:29 -0000

Alexey replied:
 > On 27/08/2012 21:18, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
 >> Hello dear websec fellows,
 >> <hat="WG chair">
 >> we have so far only very few comments regarding this. If you feel
 >> strongly either way, please say so ASAP, within the next 5 days (until
 >> Sep-1), otherwise we will have to go with the few comments we received
 >> to judge consensus based on them.
 > <hat type="participant">
 > I don't have strong feelings either way. I don't believe we have many
 > (if any at all) standardized extensions anyway.

yes, we don't have any imagined extensions on the table at this time. But given 
how we defined the ABNF, it's inherently extensible.

 > If people believe that there would be extensions,

I don't imagine any extensions at this time (as I've said before in this 
thread), however..

Ben Campbell's suggestion to select an IANA registry policy now is procedurally 
driven -- i.e., without specifying it now, someone could down the road create an 
independent-submission-stream I-D that extends the STS header, creates an IANA 
registry with a policy of their choice, and many of us might never notice

 > I have a slight
 > preference for picking an IANA policy now. Probably IETF review.

agreed.  I have already have the requisite language in -12..

    Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of the STS
    header field can be defined in other specifications, with a registry
    (having an IANA policy definition of FOO [RFC5226]) defined for them
    at such time.

..I just need to stick "IETF Review" in for FOO.