Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 29 October 2011 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 C1AAD21F84AE for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.802, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 khue4Why7rtp for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2697F21F84AD for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2011 06:59:01 -0000
Received: from p5DCC93A7.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.147.167] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 29 Oct 2011 08:59:01 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/XULIRWC3XALAFJl+fq/NUn6PMxQndRv0s2zieJa 9vNwg1zf+XSFjj
Message-ID: <4EABA42F.2070900@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:58:55 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
References: <4EAB6808.7030006@KingsMountain.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EAB6808.7030006@KingsMountain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux
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: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:59:08 -0000

On 2011-10-29 04:42, =JeffH wrote:
>  >> The max-age directive MUST appear once in the Strict-Transport-Security
>  >> header field value. The includeSubDomains directive MAY appear once.
>  >> The order of appearance of directives in the Strict-Transport-Security
>  >> header field value is not significant.
>  >>
>  >> Additional directives extending the the semantic functionality of
>  >> the Strict-Transport-Security header field may be defined in other
>  >
>  > MAY or might ?
>
> yes, a good question.
>
> I believe that there's examples in other RFCs of the use of the
> lower-case "may" in situations similar to this (I've seen it discussed
> many times over the years). I.e., not all instances of "may" in any
> given RFC are capitalized "MAY"s. In this case, "MAY" isn't appropriate
> IIRC.
>
> And yes, a way to avoid that question/issue is to use a different word
> such as "might" or "can", which i can do. I just thought a "may" has
> more correct connotations (but I /knew/ it'd come up as a question :)
>
> thanks,

+1 to "can"