Re: [websec] default value for max-age ?
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 03 January 2012 10:00 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 CCE2F21F8597 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:00:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.613, 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 qvmym5IOoKjM for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E986921F8598 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jan 2012 09:59:58 -0000
Received: from p3EE26838.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [62.226.104.56] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 03 Jan 2012 10:59:58 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18YZFBklWQY8ESeNpuI+McsEsLlZdAR9Z6UJ1LcdY oaYZyKhNCZcBMU
Message-ID: <4F02D193.7070400@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:59:47 +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: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com> <D4D8FBAE-C04C-4396-A8B8-17F42874B1DF@checkpoint.com> <4F02BABA.9070304@gmx.de> <CAJE5ia91GAKYH0ZQUAWSC6p9t_MO5aJGvCzoH_jfHcdmutCGVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia91GAKYH0ZQUAWSC6p9t_MO5aJGvCzoH_jfHcdmutCGVg@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] default value for max-age ?
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: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:00:00 -0000
On 2012-01-03 10:14, Adam Barth wrote: > ... > We should define the behavior in any case, which I guess means I'm > advocating an default max-age of zero. > ... That sounds good to me; so the grammar wouldn't need to enforce this, but the effect would be the same. Best regards, Julian
- [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: St… =JeffH
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Chris Palmer
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Adam Barth
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Yoav Nir
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Julian Reschke
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Julian Reschke
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Adam Barth
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? Julian Reschke
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re… =JeffH