IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Regarding RFC 6797

Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> Mon, 14 May 2018 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <annevk@annevk.nl>
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 BC13A12DB70 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=annevk.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2F6hqjZBOOll for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F1D312DA04 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0988348076 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=annevk.nl; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc: content-type; s=annevk.nl; bh=6IAx7TqCpx0geqhV+qXHMwiFrzs=; b=sx YqcYW15izNMH5vtQ0NeP/GrbChJAsVyEUcO0TXgco6l5L+2vowPIC0f859LRnH8c MptyPRWtdx+4jCZkXLUlVrMIBJ53tMu7H4145t4Kp0x5laXCrOu07uF5HrSo/HeT ejVePbmT3dhW75JrXbSfOvhfwZpHGz7UcqIBRwl7Y=
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: annevk@annevk.nl) by homiemail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A85A8348074 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id a8-v6so14608190wmg.5 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcxROz+sysJQPQXjTVMQL7SEJr1VfCNviTuC7EdvRKsi1qj4LNo YU3yNDWAiRchb598+ShIRwUj5TRKdbRIeAxu3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqZn0Ig/0Kkpj7ZTcQedY4rkgRGUHbpAsp+O0WWQodRpJk1pKb5ni0adQtv03FzjBL4MbMFpYHQZLTRJhL8uEo=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:ee15:: with SMTP id g21-v6mr13322210eds.269.1526315527130; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.138.2 with HTTP; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <019e01d3eb9c$955927f0$c00b77d0$@gondrom.org>
References: <CWXP265MB03125F1F074DBA2FDA1E1D2BB1860@CWXP265MB0312.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <960CE667-98A4-48A9-9E7E-B32E3405A961@gmail.com> <CADnb78jDEfAwoeObF62SmdaxpF2FrYF2TQZGnESE+1kZEU=xNA@mail.gmail.com> <019e01d3eb9c$955927f0$c00b77d0$@gondrom.org>
From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 18:32:06 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CADnb78jWAO9APYA4MMgLYcXr4DBxQoVaapNfrVm_P-QqC7j2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADnb78jWAO9APYA4MMgLYcXr4DBxQoVaapNfrVm_P-QqC7j2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Robert Linder <Robert.Vuj.Linder@outlook.com>, websec <websec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/OWMGIw62vYa4KEgDZ-SwHG_b_ow>
Subject: Re: [websec] Regarding RFC 6797
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:32:13 -0000

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Tobias Gondrom
<tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:
> I agree. Preload is probably the easiest way to go.
> And the use case of transfer of domain ownership can not be ignored.
>
> Not sure whether preload really needs further standardization, after all
> there are only a few browser implementations out there.
> However, if you think that is needed, feel free to drop me a message and we
> can write up a quick ID and publish it as individual ID.

I think it'd be good to formalize that the preload keyword is used,
cannot be used for something else, and what it's used for.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email