Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

With no hats: let's not choose a policy for a registry that we are not setting up, especially since we're not even sure that it's ever going to be set up.

We can leave it to the first extension document to set up the registry and policy. If that document ever comes.

Yoav

On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:

> Hello dear websec fellows,
> 
> <hat="WG chair">
> we have so far only very few comments regarding this. If you feel 
> strongly either way, please say so ASAP, within the next 5 days (until 
> Sep-1), otherwise we will have to go with the few comments we received 
> to judge consensus based on them.
> 
> Thank you, Tobias
> 
> 
> On 27/08/12 21:01, =JeffH wrote:
>> On 08/20/2012 10:55 AM, =JeffH wrote:> Thanks for the clarification 
>> Barry. Yes, this question is in response to Ben
>>> Campbell's review comment (which I was going to note, but you took 
>> care of it :)
>>> 
>>>> "We need to decide on an IANA policy *or* explicitly decide that we
>>>> don't want to choose that now, and leave it to whoever creates the
>>>> registry later."
>>> 
>>> yes, that's a more accurate statement of the decision.
>>> 
>>> Either way is fine by me.
>> 
>> Do we have a decision on this as yet?
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> =JeffH