Re: [websec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06

=JeffH <> Mon, 30 April 2012 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D598E21F86CE for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.176
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7+W6I5jpffnx for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a2]) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 13C1B21F86C3 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16900 invoked by uid 0); 30 Apr 2012 22:26:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 30 Apr 2012 22:26:09 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=7CYYsHWmwOymM69czGkIDPgrm5cY9F1xUyLe7GIxSb0=; b=EAWdjhOYL44hBwkWOeyxel6dZtdS+OrAr0y5uY1cCkva37gulXR1W1NcaBGuGR22FMcdlxp86aV+m5+fu80h+Q1XhAnQqXHyCPq+MEuVi7cFc3JX+p4KW2JImVqc7GB+;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1SOz2n-0007Tc-Ji; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:26:09 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:06 -0700
From: =JeffH <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <>
Subject: Re: [websec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:26:14 -0000

thanks for the review Paul. I noticed I didn't respond to some portions of your 
message that didn't get transformed into issue tickets. here goes...

 > Significant:
 > This document pretends that the TLSA protocol from the DANE WG will not
 > exist.

this item is captured in <> 
and has been discussed in a separate thread..


 > Moderate:
 > In section 8.1.2, I don't know what "ignoring separator characters" means,
 > and suspect it will cause pain if left this way.

That phrase is simply deleted in my -07 working copy.

 > [I-D.ietf-tls-ssl-version3] is not a "work in progress". I'll take this up
 > on the rfc-interest mailing list, and nothing needs to be done here.

That is addressed in my working copy via ref of (the recently published) 
[RFC6101] instead.

 > RFC 2818 is listed as a normative reference, and yet it is Informational.
 > This will need to be called out in the PROTO report. Alternately, it can be
 > called an informative reference, since one does not need to understand it
 > in order to implement this document.

this item was addressed by Alexey in his reply here..


 > I have alerted the idna-update mailing list of this WG LC. This might cause
 > some helicoptered-in comments, but better now than during IETF LC.

I had noticed that.  I'll followup there once -07 is pub'd. Note that I'd 
engaged in non-trivial discussions there on idna-update@ about various aspects 
of -strict-transport-sec back in Sep-2011...


..and I have some hopefull-improved IDNA language in my -07 working copy.

 > Editorial:
 > "annunciate" (used a few times) is a fancy word for "announce". Maybe use
 > the far more common word instead.
 > In section 3.1, "suboptimal downside" is unclear. Is there an optimal
 > downside? I suggest replacing it with "negative".
 > The lead sentences in sections 11.2, 11.4, and 11.5 lack verbs; verbs are
 > used in 11.1 and 11.3. This should be an easy fix.

the above are captured in issue ticket #40 

thanks again,