Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 27/08/2012 21:18, 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.
<hat type="participant">

I don't have strong feelings either way. I don't believe we have many 
(if any at all) standardized extensions anyway.
If people believe that there would be extensions, I have a slight 
preference for picking an IANA policy now. Probably IETF review.
> 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