Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

On 14/08/12 08:12, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Right.
>
> As a reminder, the proposed resolution is as follows:
>
>   * Do not establish a registry now
>        Let the first new header field specification establish it
>
>   * A client that gets an unknown field ignores it
>        This means no mandatory-to-understand extensions
>
> At this stage, a +1 response is OK though not necessary (we got plenty of those in the room), but any disagreement should come with an explanation.

<hat="individual">
+1. ;-)

Ps.: and thanks to Yoav for framing the topic.

>
> Thanks
>
> Yoav
>
> ================================================================
> From: websec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:websec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:14 AM
> To: IETF WebSec WG
> Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but do LockCA and/or LockEV offer any
> functionality that you can't already get with public key pinning as
> currently specified?
>
>   Folks, this thread has rather been hijacked.  We need to have some WG input on what registration policy to recommend for a possible future STS header field registry.  That's what this thread is for, and I need to see some WG discussion about it in order that Jeff may finish the document and that I may move it forward.
>
> Please take discussion of LockCA and LockEV to another thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec