Re: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-07

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EA221F85F1 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdP4Pe1G9LnK for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3471D21F85F0 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:21:02 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-07
Thread-Index: AQHNKg/DIK8xOP6K90aK+FVnv+njq5a6AbjQ
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:21:02 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E5C7@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4FA3FE5A.70405@KingsMountain.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA3FE5A.70405@KingsMountain.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-07
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:23:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: =JeffH [mailto:Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:06 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: IETF WebSec WG
> Subject: Re: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-07
> 
> yes, as well as Section 2 of [RFC2616], as noted in S 6.1 of
> -strict-transport-sec-07 (and prior revs)..
> 
>     The ABNF syntax for the STS header field is given below.  It is based
>     on the Generic Grammar defined in Section 2 of [RFC2616] (which
>     includes a notion of "implied linear whitespace", also known as
>     "implied *LWS").

Yep, mea culpa, although I suspect I won't be the last person to run into this given all of my ABNF work to date doesn't include this special context.

-MSK