Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 28 August 2012 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 25DD921F84FC for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6w+NtSDIZQVG for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0B621F8494 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1346164469; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=2GEmUZKO2bJH2sb64aupjSxhb/4AJ/JgP3XFhvmD2t0=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=wRQxd7FheBtrZdf2znZX9razyAFaMOd42GTgkTCLi/ROwRgHDoXgID8u/ipAL133RGzw6m 2IssKgb0SCD2FBP5mqqpiux7+QKZ2e9P7Jp9FOgS4vKKZ5j7bhBUF5xRbfxapguss8dhj1 joKqa58Kt/2EhfZufAq8QiRdpIIR2fs=;
Received: from [172.16.11.4] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <UDzW9ABdyLSt@waldorf.isode.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:34:29 +0100
Message-ID: <503CD79F.1040907@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:37:19 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
References: <503279FA.5070304@KingsMountain.com> <503BD234.5030509@KingsMountain.com> <503BD617.3000607@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <503BD617.3000607@gondrom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability
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, 28 Aug 2012 14:34:31 -0000

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