Re: [websec] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-11

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Fri, 10 August 2012 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.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 A43EC21F863F for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 93CR+9uRC64M for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F0F9021F861B for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23990 invoked by uid 0); 10 Aug 2012 21:33:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2012 21:33:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=zQ42lv4nJ35pqAeoI1DBK7QuzkWuO0maehLqEdWcNw4=; b=nP7T9HTdfxO9PV1OTuC7BwjLaByYiMHmmqcpWPoSCFT+jwlIiE5BqcKI9hkfVMcVRuPJ3wEKYorwfWULZSHCIfKDfdtB7Ypex/bymket+MziQjEpFNwgTfP/43MTahNx;
Received: from [24.4.122.173] (port=41385 helo=[192.168.11.12]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1SzwqC-0001Ci-He; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:33:56 -0600
Message-ID: <50257E43.8010005@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:33:55 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.4.122.173 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-11
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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:34:20 -0000

Thanks Ben.

 > Jeff and I had a f2f discussion about this point in Vancouver. To paraphrase
 > (and I assume he will correct me if if I mischaracterize anything), Jeff
 > indicated that this really wasn't a MUST level requirement due to the
 > variation and vagaries in application behavior and abilities.

Yes, see the NOTE in section 7.2.

 > Rather, it's
 > more of a "do the best you can" sort of thing. Specifically, he indicated
 > that an implementation that chose to go ahead and serve unprotected content
 > due to the listed caveats on redirecting to HTTPS would necessarily be
 > out-of-compliance.

I presume you actually mean "not necessarily", which would then be correct, 
unless I'm misunderstanding something.


 > If the requirement really that you SHOULD NOT (rather than MUST NOT) serve
 > unprotected content, then I think the original language is okay.

agreed.

thanks,

=JeffH