Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 22:55 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 1CB1821E8093 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 FPdA8h7RjMjj for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 75A0C21E8091 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20321 invoked by uid 0); 17 Aug 2012 22:55:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 2012 22:55:13 -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=OoDZPYzOIfzLLoy5l8Ni408s5Kfg1pcaUxY9oginTdo=; b=hVIO0yuwiYoWUK/JJFn8uUCxm4RP1IGg4hOaFxxTeM0ANfBOnRgRcGqOezuw0lpaLF20RbTWg9uMVAFvtrI+8+PhhjAc0ntIsVbS4dbZqqpkrsTv9QoDF74btBx4ZR2j;
Received: from [216.113.168.128] (port=53948 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 1T2VRh-0003B1-RA for websec@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:55:13 -0600
Message-ID: <502ECBD3.6050902@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:55:15 -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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:55:36 -0000

Yoav Nir noted:
 >
 > 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

Thanks, Yoav.

I'd also noted that we need to decide on a IANA policy to declare. My original 
message is here..

   https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01315.html

..and I suggested that, since HSTS is a security policy, I lean towards wanting 
to have relatively rigorous review applied to any registry and its contents 
created for HSTS directives and thus am thinking a policy of "IETF Review" is 
what we ought to state (for "FOO" in the below excerpt from -12 at the end of 
section 6.1)..

    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 FOO [RFC5226]) defined for them
    at such time.

    NOTE:  Such future directives will be ignored by UAs implementing
           only this specification, as well as by generally non-
           conforming UAs.  See Section 14.1 "Non-Conformant User Agent
           Implications" for further discussion.


thanks,

=JeffH