Re: [websec] Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06.txt

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Wed, 09 May 2012 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.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 4870211E80BB for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 13:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.365, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 i8lejwFPzJDv for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8446611E8080 for <websec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15996 invoked by uid 0); 9 May 2012 20:53:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 9 May 2012 20:53:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Jhw2RAuwCgGiWw8IdlKSiL5Ji2j6J+E4w5ZGpyd1gF0=; b=rITXziAI5aCN62L8EINiTsUZZOj+KeriCo78NPgY0vO+KpuhfKnezFo5+Pjk2T1UEQ45nOlu3FTk+h/IYiHYnhHqkWJUn9cfcVIp3h0wWKNXoU2ZuYOHrKK4fHZun9Ao;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.90]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1SSDtO-0002q8-4r; Wed, 09 May 2012 14:53:50 -0600
Message-ID: <4FAAD960.8010502@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 13:53:52 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06.txt
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: Wed, 09 May 2012 20:53:53 -0000

Hi,

I've filed issue ticket #45 encompassing the items in your message I'm replying 
to, and will address them in -08 (underway).

 > On 02/05/2012 20:45, =JeffH wrote:
 >> [ resent with correct Subject: ]
 >>
 >> Hi Alexey, thanks for the review, apologies for latency.
 > Hi Jeff,
 >> >     The two directives defined in this specification are described
 >> below.
 >> >     The overall requirements for directives are:
 >> >
 >> >     o  The order of appearance of directives is not significant.
 >> >
 >> >     o  All directives MUST appear only once in an STS header field.
 >> >
 >> >     o  Directive names are case-insensitive.
 >> >
 >> >     o  UAs MUST ignore any STS header fields containing directives that
 >> >        do not conform to their ABNF definition.
 >> >
 >> > Should this list also say something about how unrecognized directives
 >> > should be treated? I.e. are they ignored by default, is the whole
 >> > STS header field ignored, etc.
 >>
 >> Does the last bullet item above not address those questions?
 >>
 > No. The last bullet is talking about recognized, but invalid data. I am
 > asking about unrecognized data.

So how about this re-write of that last bullet item..

    o  UAs MUST ignore any STS header fields containing directives, or
       other header field value data, that does not conform to the
       syntax defined in this specification.

..?


 >> >     Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of
 >> the STS
 >> >     header field may be defined in other specifications (which "update"
 >> >     this specification),
 >> >
 >> > Is this a requirement on future extensions?
 >> > (In general "updating" this specification using Updates: in the header
 >> > of the relevant RFC
 >> > is a) a heavy weight mechanism (it prevents Experimental extensions)
 >> and
 >> > b) this seems
 >> > like a wrong mechanism anyway, as Updates usually means that the
 >> > document being
 >> > updated can't be implemented without the document which updates it.)
 >>
 >> We can place in the above para whatever we/you/ourADs wish.
 >> Suggestions welcome.
 >
 > It is not about the location of this sentence.

I did not say anything about the location of the sentence.

 > I think you need to
 > strike "(which "update" this specification)".

works for me. done in my -08 working copy.


<snip/>

 >> Re: [websec] wrt IDN processing-related security considerations for
 >> draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
 >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01015.html
 >>
 >> we should probably fork off any further discussion on this topic to
 >> that thread.
 >>
 >>
 >> > Also, does "in order to facilitate their IDNA transition" apply
 >> > to the second reference or to both references?
 >>
 >> It applies to both. One may implement [RFC5895] /or/ [UTS46] to
 >> facilitate one's IDNA transition (as I understand it).
 >
 > Can you please move "in order to facilitate their IDNA transition" to
 > the beginning of the sentence? I think this will make it clearer.


sure, done in my -08 working copy.

=JeffH