Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Mon, 20 August 2012 17:55 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 CFF9021F8667 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.847, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 u1LKGePqHl7s for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 421CC21F8650 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1164 invoked by uid 0); 20 Aug 2012 17:55:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2012 17:55:06 -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:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=hxOx4oD1EnV6b7MUT83ke3RcCWkfAlJMCDx/zBunmME=; b=SWV01tHeYbLVIKRedWmYbQsc40FK6EzdaoXYxR5e1x6fzg9Bjq0+BPEtsfw2wiCiLHB8F966DwlpFGHlVMLLVbJlvXpnOkVRS8yK1QzOXGxhhZkQEs32yQX7bdtxY8cL;
Received: from [216.113.168.128] (port=63409 helo=[10.244.136.52]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1T3WBu-0006HQ-0S for websec@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:55:06 -0600
Message-ID: <503279FA.5070304@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:06 -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: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
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 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:55:29 -0000

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.

=JeffH