Re: [websec] HSTS ABNF still broken: requires leading semi-colon

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 24 March 2012 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 B912A21F86FD for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.537, 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 lYeHKDoAqZp3 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE1D721F855A for <websec@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2012 10:28:31 -0000
Received: from p57A6E4F6.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [87.166.228.246] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 24 Mar 2012 11:28:31 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19unFhhOpNu1JSUn6yhU7QEh3nGMCbMZI7MziqfNf 8BAJ/E14JNQ9pR
Message-ID: <4F6DA1BC.7030605@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:28:12 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
References: <4F6D00C2.6090805@KingsMountain.com> <4F6D9F83.9000504@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F6D9F83.9000504@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] HSTS ABNF still broken: requires leading semi-colon
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:28:33 -0000

On 2012-03-24 11:18, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...
> I think this is fine. And you can enforce "can't be totally null" in
> prose, if you don't want to fix this in ABNF.
> ...

There will always be constraints not checkable in the ABNF.

I recommend to keep the ABNF simple (in particular not to include 
syntactical constructs that vary by parameter name :-), and put all 
other constraints either into prose, or into separate ABNF rules for 
specific parameter values.

Best regards, Julian