Re: [websec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6797 (4075)

Tobias Gondrom <> Sun, 10 August 2014 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703411A010F for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.668
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ppZfNEe4_aGt for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F9201A0009 for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-No-Relay: not in my network
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=OcAxrbAKb04Wyjx3aYAKCE0XkEsp184jtW8ECZJBmbpm7d9+nh1s7t+yrbilqDsIO61UZ+PRf2ZbifW0AZ/rWK1BGgvMQaVgKY8Cg6jT5pb1k7++CcuJreXi8ATrNQQeDVFG/1Lfj3WDT+7nyiSIU3crMShIH2QoHasa1nLGTxk=; h=X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3314115390052; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:04:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:04:40 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <COL131-DS14E7BAAD30061ECA07D1D5F0EE0@phx.gbl> <> <> <COL131-DS10F844603100882CC36852F0EE0@phx.gbl> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010704050706030008060007"
Subject: Re: [websec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6797 (4075)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:04:49 -0000

On 10/08/14 16:02, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> I agree, this is an "update" and not an "errata".
>>> However, am not sure how to best retain this information:
>>> Because this is a good point for a best practice.
>>> And be it only in advising the best practice when using HSTS, like
>>> simply including one link to the parent to avoid
>>> having unprotected parent-domains.
>> Well, if we could talk Eric into writing a draft...
> ...
>> So we get an Informational draft called "best practices in using HSTS". 2
>> pages long unless we rathole and add lots of stuff.
> That absolutely seems the best approach, and have it "update" 6797.  I
> would love it if Eric would be a co-author, and I think we can keep
> the working group going long enough to do this.
> To Tobias's more general question of where we keep track of these
> sorts of things when we don't have a working group to pick it up and
> go with it:  Yes, that's something we've been discussing.  If we have
> a former working group to work from, there's a wiki on
> (websec's is at <>, and
> it's entirely unused, but some working groups do use theirs).  I've
> been suggesting that we make a habit of keeping updates, change
> requests, follow-on notes, and other non-errata things there, on the
> appropriate current or former WG wiki.  If there's no obvious WG, we
> can use the appsawg wiki at
> <> for App Area stuff.
> The only bad thing about that is that there's no pointer from the RFC
> to the appropriate wiki, and we've talked about establishing some sort
> of per-RFC wiki also, or maybe just a per-RFC pointer to a wiki.
> Barry

I agree.

The question is, does Eric (and maybe Jeff or anybody else) want to do a
small update informational RFC?

Best regards, Tobias

Ps.: and thanks for the clarification about the Wiki.