Re: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13

Hello Jeff and websec fellows,

<hat="WG chair"> and <hat="document shepherd">
thanks a lot for the latest version and to my understanding it indeed 
closes all open issues.

For all fyi: Please note that the update in section 6.1  item 5.
declares that future registries will be using IETF review for 
creation/defining.

"Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of the STS
    header field can be defined in other specifications, with a registry
    (having an IANA policy definition of IETF Review [RFC5226]) defined
    for them at such time."

There has been some discussion on this, but to my understanding no major 
conflicts have been raised with the proposed approach.

<taking all hats off>

Best regards and see you soon in Atlanta,

Tobias

On 15/09/12 07:57, =JeffH wrote:
> New rev:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13
>
> please see change log excerpt included below for details. AFAIK this 
> is ready for submission to IESG and IETF-wide Last Call.
>
>
> full issue ticket list for strict-transport-sec:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/query?status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&component=strict-transport-sec&order=id> 
>
>
> Redline spec diff from previous rev:
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13.txt 
>
>
> side-by-side diff from previous rev:
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13.txt 
>
>
>
> All issue tickets are closed.
>
> Change Log for this rev is below.
>
>
> =JeffH
>
>
> ==============================================================
>
> Appendix D.  Change Log
>
>    [RFCEditor: please remove this section upon publication as an RFC.]
>
>    Changes are grouped by spec revision listed in reverse issuance
>    order.
>
> D.1.  For draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
>
>       Changes from -12 to -13:
>
>       1.  Addressed the IANA registry and IANA registry policy questions
>           raised in Ben Campbel's Gen-ART LC review.  Selected "IETF
>           Review" for IANA policy.  See the portion of this thread from
>           this message onwards for details: <https://www.ietf.org/
>           mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01355.html>
>
>       2.  Clarified the questions regarding max-age=0 interacting with
>           includeSubdomains.  Expanded section 5.  HSTS Mechanism
>           Overview, Added clarification text and forward ref to S 8.1
>           from S 6.1.1.  Added two additional examples to S 6.2 which
>           contain max-age=0.  See the thread rooted here for questions
>           that informed this: <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
>           websec/current/msg01347.html>
>
>       3.  upgraded ref to draft-ietf-dane-protocol to be to RFC6698.
>
>       Changes from -11 to -12:
>
>       1.  Addressed various issues in Ben Campbel's Gen-ART LC review.
>           See this message for details: <https://www.ietf.org/
>           mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01324.html>
>
>       Changes from -10 to -11:
>
> <snip/>
>
> ---
> end
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec