IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 29 December 2011 21:24 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 E5FE521F8B9D for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.309, 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 g9sGi0pqRhsw for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D83E21F8B9B for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2011 21:24:47 -0000
Received: from p3EE2751C.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [62.226.117.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 29 Dec 2011 22:24:47 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/6z/4jSn76bwJMvbBJWO/hIbTkLuWom5PQpa0n72 ZFaqvsmApu8MIJ
Message-ID: <4EFCDA9C.90308@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:24:44 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <4EAB66B3.4090404@KingsMountain.com> <4EABB25E.9000900@gmx.de> <4EFC5F7B.7050304@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia_HhenArVey=5-ttLqh4-vbBE01TFZKuzAmAtHQJQJ3kQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFCD7E4.5060507@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia-w47HHhnTBAE_PMApAAdCu=6PJexaaoJO0MZ23Ae-vcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia-w47HHhnTBAE_PMApAAdCu=6PJexaaoJO0MZ23Ae-vcw@mail.gmail.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] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux
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: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:50 -0000

On 2011-12-29 22:18, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> On 2011-12-29 20:50, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> ..-
>>
>>> As I wrote before, I don't think we should include quoted-string in
>>> the grammar.  As far as I know, no one has implemented it and I have
>>> no plans to implement quoted-string in Chrome.  Having quoted-string
>>> in the grammar only leads to pain.,
>>
>> It would be helpful if you were more precise on the pain it causes,
>> considering you need to process extension directives anyway...
>
> We've been over this several times before.  The problem is the
> requirement to balance DQUOTE and the complexities surrounding the
> error conditions if the DQUOTEs don't balance properly (including
> escaping).

Yes, but you are avoiding the question I asked. Are you implementing 
quoted-string for extension parameters?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email