Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux)

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Tue, 03 January 2012 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <palmer@google.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 5A9C121F8518 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:35:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 fdFviOKTLAZN for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8511421F8516 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:35:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so10917639wib.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:x-system-of-record:content-type; bh=lgjqZFsI0D1PKQQR10mFgSERV1agGywuLrFI/zhIHN0=; b=U3acrWSEs7ASgD1Dsu3jYmo2jgn4YsPPNX/VCWwj+WsIcT01dplW5s3LbmSPQTksJ5 iJzUrHk6pVu4I4r1IRJA==
Received: by 10.180.101.35 with SMTP id fd3mr99022806wib.22.1325550900693; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.101.35 with SMTP id fd3mr99022792wib.22.1325550900576; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.227.94 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com>
References: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOuvq22ruh7J==JvTnwtvf0tSDa5RzqyP_uxO3OEi3ThixC4GA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
X-System-Of-Record: true
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: 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: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:35:02 -0000

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote:

> hm ... I lean towards keeping max-age as REQUIRED (without a default value)
> and thus hopefully encouraging deployers to think a bit about this and its
> ramifications, and also because its value is so site-specific in terms of a
> web application's needs, deployment approach, and tolerance for downside
> risk of breaking itself.

I feel the same way for public key pinning, for the same reason.