Re: [websec] Issue 54 - Adding a report-only mode

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Wed, 06 March 2013 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 CC93411E80D5 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 75JCQ1hyZyac for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5240611E80A5 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d10so6386411vea.12 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:55:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=y1Efef0AB6q5tGWjcldPPbUWJcQFScLKshZSlgTbjpo=; b=fdwPJwyXgxXtoFqVs7I4Hk6pYAnIrWxxp9/UUVdQ4bYqBB3f/ZMic61B/8ZSQoVVx4 PxKolvfrsax30dwqcld6DIBdQ86xP2LMuRttVQ5GqBWeJY6aE8vM08t4poxtZSTtfiFI 4MaW601y+ylUhY9Sw27fSGevPhc+iV7cjUlBY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=y1Efef0AB6q5tGWjcldPPbUWJcQFScLKshZSlgTbjpo=; b=lLbpPc1M6xs5E/dWxCnZ94iZLwYpfPOFNwQQhxcutt1fxk+AdYp/BFwpPzPAg3nVja zO+UzTlUx/isG90faFLTjwNCbpGrgiQDa1sEx8JEZ/zdeZZJX3A6Ij10hoEqHXu0ZFuX jGo6oObixwC8GhrklEkCbf34r76xNOyEu/KW0Rz8bCmc1+YGO1wyOq4qAuDPbPVm0iIF CkedqUtvL3YVoyJ4f33ZPWZyY9012c0W4YvzJmXnHNmf6JHB99PazybeBfMfO5QjKo3Z ISfyHJDlI1fFpcn0lWcNvjhd4G/HPqCEMGaLwW00YC2QXHbxAkBrT8VU6/CxTJT+W1nT SdLA==
X-Received: by 10.221.11.135 with SMTP id pe7mr10627715vcb.41.1362538526641; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:55:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.182.169 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0e3af2fc9efa802944efa946a800b62b.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com>
References: <0e3af2fc9efa802944efa946a800b62b.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:55:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71kfaJW72=5WST5T1t=GX1JKydAQ54hUxZz80B3Hqds=6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: ryan-ietfhasmat@sleevi.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaoAb0FIv6IMp3NK85laneK8fs1fcyDr6jWtJsWx63HPExHxEZr4zNlrRKFoHK17YZQwpJ
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] Issue 54 - Adding a report-only mode
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:55:27 -0000

On 4 March 2013 20:09, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietfhasmat@sleevi.com> wrote:
> I'd like to solicit feedback and make sure that both the discussions from
> Atlanta and from the list have been accurately captured. Are there
> concerns with a Report-Only mode that have not been accurately captured?

Obviously I wasn't in Atlanta, but I feel if you're sending the known
pins in the report (and you should) you should send the whole policy
as you know it, including directives, and some mechanism for max-age
that says 'when I think this will expire'.  Maybe even 'when I got
this directive' (if available) and 'where i got this directive from'
(preloaded vs header).

port should be an integer or a string, but one or the other. Why have
it be ambiguous?

-tom