IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Regarding RFC 6797

Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <lists@eitanadler.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 19A761241F5 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eitanadler.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7zc76DxoJdm for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6968120454 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u83-v6so6328784ywc.4 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b9MRhlf60/P7bY/yx6li68rmFDVgEXUOkljAgB9TjFU=; b=LFzscBtsH1v3jbKNgOm4Ha1+bk94yJnjC40DoX62bGh7OVypbQyDDlq6cNbDDfHdYm SSK5ZKYT3mODKaDe/Tjppm6aq3A0whC+2kA9QKWOuPFnfVk9sIIsdxvOp8biF0Iu8I7f csA8JikSKELLxzhLJuB3LiSo7RSuhUR/49pMs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b9MRhlf60/P7bY/yx6li68rmFDVgEXUOkljAgB9TjFU=; b=puqKjInPdwoVVOU8VDkNe14Sh+PJ1Bq20jsLYBrOVa7ERBhVATmJibVjigLz+IvnT0 U3u3TqABCoKoHuWcYOMabrXg58NJpdvzkDbsWQjGS+xAkriCdZLUfbAMMfM9I7QTQcuv j1gFaT5fT4NHz3pfxLVV4cmE6KNbtEzMe03Up6uwJiLdB7V60A/HFOId51VokMpudAp1 tZpH7G4iGbJmRxO0saXUsah6ov9AFTko8sUcwxstZN+R7hgCzcMeaa1IqLoj8qmKZdG9 /lYjGR6tmQ5zXHMqpsM4P6PmIOpkuL5m1UbhjnQnylWmpxR1TcwF19IAeVKDS1poQU/Q P20w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwexvK/TE7Bu9XWiqjJ9AV2YjfAXGVomDWfJHVF3yvU7uQjbi0va jOUuLTQyMYHRGzEUSV8+epMI0K7sQ0j02M/QtvLyXw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqmYsTFrqevEivSgUOYG9CoOaIzW8otOQIkeUrzSCkWCgUwAhK3DxSBkHVRAGLk1EE/i1UtPTLXgjH7DEZ9u9U=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:a68a:: with SMTP id d132-v6mr688243ywh.387.1527054542588; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a25:c709:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <019e01d3eb9c$955927f0$c00b77d0$@gondrom.org>
References: <CWXP265MB03125F1F074DBA2FDA1E1D2BB1860@CWXP265MB0312.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <960CE667-98A4-48A9-9E7E-B32E3405A961@gmail.com> <CADnb78jDEfAwoeObF62SmdaxpF2FrYF2TQZGnESE+1kZEU=xNA@mail.gmail.com> <019e01d3eb9c$955927f0$c00b77d0$@gondrom.org>
From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 22:48:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkWiev6Ez2Y_MzxLz1mpPaYLoN1BEuKq1tG2Ra1wD-=mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Robert Linder <Robert.Vuj.Linder@outlook.com>, websec@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/b6Ar_COnRwYBULdMdjelamHOSFE>
Subject: Re: [websec] Regarding RFC 6797
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 23 May 2018 05:49:06 -0000

On 14 May 2018 at 08:59, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:
> I agree. Preload is probably the easiest way to go.
> And the use case of transfer of domain ownership can not be ignored.
>
> Not sure whether preload really needs further standardization, after all
> there are only a few browser implementations out there.
> However, if you think that is needed, feel free to drop me a message and we
> can write up a quick ID and publish it as individual ID.


What ever happened to this? It can be valuable to standardize preloading.


-- 
Eitan Adler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email