IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec - closing of WGLC

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 03 July 2012 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 61E9A11E80CA for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 3V3KbWmBOFvh for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67AE11E809C for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so6437280ghb.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.180.40 with SMTP id i28mr22829878yhm.22.1341351338644; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y63sm33876399yha.9.2012.07.03.14.35.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so11969362obb.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.76.168 with SMTP id l8mr14894655obw.49.1341351336279; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.198.65 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FF35EFD.3090902@KingsMountain.com>
References: <4FF35EFD.3090902@KingsMountain.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:35:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia-Xe_QdrOoHZ1+iVa7hCBOKHmxHom=4XW_ctqA0ZNhkEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec - closing of WGLC
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:35:37 -0000

To my knowledge as well.

Adam


On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:07 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote:
> Yes. To the best of my knowledge, everything conforms with BCP 78 and BCP
> 79.
>
> =JeffH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email