IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-03

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 38B6E21F84EA for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.76
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, 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 bCd0lwkLln3z for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C453A21F84D7 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaae16 with SMTP id e16so8101494iaa.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.133.9 with SMTP id hw9mr9640342icc.34.1326660812272; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yg2sm21332894igb.1.2012.01.15.12.53.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaae16 with SMTP id e16so8101483iaa.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.47.229 with SMTP id g5mr10092848ign.23.1326660811169; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.62.139 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120115204154.GH32205@1wt.eu>
References: <20120115195120.GG32205@1wt.eu> <CAJE5ia_gBJ=7DviO5hkmqnXHtC8ptHyKAMieBrFbVV-h9rQo9g@mail.gmail.com> <20120115204154.GH32205@1wt.eu>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:53:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia9vPmkMB-NkF-5PRzd2UZcrnSvmVPNYX3XvA80HMeVvEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: websec@ietf.org, ian@hixie.ch
Subject: Re: [websec] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-03
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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:53:40 -0000

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:52:38AM -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
>> The requirement in the spec is what we intend.  The rule applies only
>> to that exact octet sequence.
>
> But then what are the impacts of not matching the correct content-type ?

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you explain a scenario
in which something happens that causes someone to be sad with the
current requirements?

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email