Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux)

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 03 January 2012 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.com>
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 17AFE21F8572 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 QfdbO-vOFMqR for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3DC21F857A for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so8704953iab.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.147.72 with SMTP id m8mr53281629icv.56.1325551881091; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cv10sm102954308igc.0.2012.01.02.16.51.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so8704916iab.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.6.233 with SMTP id e9mr60236933iga.17.1325551879139; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.62.139 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:50:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com>
References: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:50:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia98pLvbZXsrtbT-zJHSUpb=jydiKGx=FsTED6etuDP2yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: 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: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:51:24 -0000

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote:
> Julian wondered..
>>
>> wouldn't it make sense to have a default for max-age so it
>> can be made OPTIONAL?
>
> hm ... I lean towards keeping max-age as REQUIRED (without a default value)
> and thus hopefully encouraging deployers to think a bit about this and its
> ramifications, and also because its value is so site-specific in terms of a
> web application's needs, deployment approach, and tolerance for downside
> risk of breaking itself.

Makes sense to me.  Chrome currently ignores the header if the server
doesn't specify a max-age.

Adam