Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Thu, 29 December 2011 21:45 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 4012721F8BB2 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:36 -0800 (PST)
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=[AWL=-0.000, 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 lslGrgr3cMVB for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9B521F8BB0 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnk5 with SMTP id k5so9795790ggn.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.148.235 with SMTP id v71mr50298756yhj.6.1325195135326; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm87304237any.3.2011.12.29.13.45.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so11132088obc.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr43073763igc.17.1325195134121; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.62.139 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EFCDDD5.6040005@gmx.de>
References: <4EAB66B3.4090404@KingsMountain.com> <4EABB25E.9000900@gmx.de> <4EFC5F7B.7050304@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia_HhenArVey=5-ttLqh4-vbBE01TFZKuzAmAtHQJQJ3kQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFCD7E4.5060507@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia-w47HHhnTBAE_PMApAAdCu=6PJexaaoJO0MZ23Ae-vcw@mail.gmail.com> <4EFCDA9C.90308@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia-E1nhN1YGV6uy3uEq4oboQowDm4FboKbWV1kunHQmXPw@mail.gmail.com> <4EFCDDD5.6040005@gmx.de>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:45:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia8CL9ozRJgRNCdu6XwVT0paVuVUreB12f-BiMvH+wiq6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux
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: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:45:36 -0000

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-29 22:32, Adam Barth wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-12-29 22:18, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-12-29 20:50, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I wrote before, I don't think we should include quoted-string in
>>>>>> the grammar.  As far as I know, no one has implemented it and I have
>>>>>> no plans to implement quoted-string in Chrome.  Having quoted-string
>>>>>> in the grammar only leads to pain.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be helpful if you were more precise on the pain it causes,
>>>>> considering you need to process extension directives anyway...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've been over this several times before.  The problem is the
>>>> requirement to balance DQUOTE and the complexities surrounding the
>>>> error conditions if the DQUOTEs don't balance properly (including
>>>> escaping).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but you are avoiding the question I asked. Are you implementing
>>> quoted-string for extension parameters?
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Here's the grammar I recommend:
>>
>>    Strict-Transport-Security = "Strict-Transport-Security" ":"
>>                                    directive *( ";" [ directive ] )
>>
>>    directive         = max-age | includeSubDomains | STS-d-ext
>>    max-age           = "max-age" "=" delta-seconds
>>    includeSubDomains = "includeSubDomains"
>>    STS-d-ext     = token [ "=" token ]
>>
>> I would also define the precise requirements for parsing all possible
>> input sequences, but I understand that's not fashionable.
>
> Ack. This is at least consistent.
>
> That being said, I disagree. token=quoted-string is widely implemented, and
> if there are clients not getting it right we should fix them.
>
> If you are aware of specific clients having this problem please list them so
> we can open bug reports.

Chrome does not (and will not) implement quoted-string for the STS
header for the reasons I've explained previously.  You're welcome to
file bugs, but I'm just going to close them WONTFIX.

Adam