Re: [websec] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 03 January 2012 08:20 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 99C4D21F84B9 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 00:20:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.671, 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 rWbLwMWatyUa for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 00:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A651B21F84C8 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 00:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jan 2012 08:20:13 -0000
Received: from p3EE26838.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [62.226.104.56] by mail.gmx.net (mp062) with SMTP; 03 Jan 2012 09:20:13 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/dGIRAKF/9B97wah8Cio+WWF8e29ZGZubZEHBWw ejEQKMAOaEzRV7
Message-ID: <4F02BA38.7040904@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:20:08 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <4F023DD0.8060308@KingsMountain.com> <CAJE5ia98pLvbZXsrtbT-zJHSUpb=jydiKGx=FsTED6etuDP2yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia98pLvbZXsrtbT-zJHSUpb=jydiKGx=FsTED6etuDP2yg@mail.gmail.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] default value for max-age ? (was: Re: 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: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:20:22 -0000

On 2012-01-03 01:50, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM, =JeffH<Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>  wrote:
>> Julian wondered..
>>>
>>> wouldn't it make sense to have a default for max-age so it
>>> can be made OPTIONAL?
>>
>> hm ... I lean towards keeping max-age as REQUIRED (without a default value)
>> and thus hopefully encouraging deployers to think a bit about this and its
>> ramifications, and also because its value is so site-specific in terms of a
>> web application's needs, deployment approach, and tolerance for downside
>> risk of breaking itself.

Understood. I just wanted to make sure that the simplification was 
considered.

> Makes sense to me.  Chrome currently ignores the header if the server
> doesn't specify a max-age.

Well yes, the spec says that it's invalid.

Best regards, Julian