[websec] #52: Clarification of section 2.3.1
"websec issue tracker" <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sat, 11 August 2012 21:23 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 C5B5311E8087 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, 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 tIQHdATE64PU for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255E811E8097 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49860 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1T0J9v-0000uC-K3; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:23:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: websec issue tracker <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning@tools.ietf.org
X-Trac-Project: websec
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:23:47 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/websec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/52
Message-ID: <051.df0a7eb62cdb49309147ff5b8eb8e401@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 52
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning@tools.ietf.org, websec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: cevans@google.com, palmer@google.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20120811212349.255E811E8097@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:23:49 -0700
Resent-From: trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: [websec] #52: Clarification of section 2.3.1
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:23:50 -0000
#52: Clarification of section 2.3.1
I'd suggest the following change to 2.3.1, clarifying it's
required-ness and a max-age of 0.
2.3.1. max-age
max-age specifies the number of seconds, after the reception of the
Public-Key-Pins HTTP Response Header, during which the UA regards the
host as a Pinned Host. The delta-seconds production is specified in
[rfc-2616].
max-age is a required attribute. If omitted, the UA MUST NOT note the
host as a Pinned Host, and MUST discard any previously set Pinning
Metadata for that host in its non-volatile store.
If max-age is set to 0, the UA MUST likewise discard any previsouly
set Pinning Metadata.
--
-------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: Tom Ritter | Owner: draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: key-pinning | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/52>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>
- [websec] #52: Clarification of section 2.3.1 websec issue tracker
- Re: [websec] #52: Clarification of section 2.3.1 websec issue tracker
- Re: [websec] #52: Clarification of section 2.3.1 websec issue tracker