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

[=JeffH <[e-mail]>]

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