Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7302B1A03C8;
 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id GIFFf4xzHLjK; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F249D1A03BD;
 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hi2so5631876wib.16
 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 
 h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
 :message-id:references:to;
 bh=rFzGffZPxRmXM5P8wvytzZMJbTgKJVKNso/VmpfZKXg=;
 b=AA3ZZdgQeZlHYSEqhl5NkdAJrZTxXBfo9916em4qcNgGw9Di7DsxUt1it1EKUVngsd
 hYKryL6j74GSC2h0rUAclrn/sCVkYRUd2Q9R8WYzvzKFMVAgOpWfZQp7uszrGLXGdqqe
 a3ztwf6uEbL1kl5yOe1JXU0dM4x6MeeJbZM65agNHU64xSP5n+ulddw5PAhCwMPlNWPV
 6GUuGIOGzMPKTInwjh8Vx5DIKU1ONa9gBKDi5Tt6sJs0dQpgOPuF9Vo8KF+5EgPgJykC
 PBoKZ0uql3S3VqU0tvw3p0V4Dn2VgJEIzxgrVRrDoDLA6rVgOhOELa6E9k3shodb5y+C
 6Nmw==
X-Received: by 10.180.210.163 with SMTP id mv3mr7739937wic.15.1408462669655;
 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.250.90] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lj18sm13796147wic.8.2014.08.19.08.37.48
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_65686F5C-010E-4F79-B88E-7B38796AE5FC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACvaWvb2HyhgHZJH4-DO0NX=zj2-Mk8r1Ua-we4HRwBp6twFeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:37:46 +0300
Message-Id: <7A8DE383-3F22-4DCB-BA3E-6CCF98B0857B@gmail.com>
References: <CAC4RtVDiy-QbHNREsm07+iPzjDiZ1q5GjowZCBnP63nw1ezTAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACvaWvb2HyhgHZJH4-DO0NX=zj2-Mk8r1Ua-we4HRwBp6twFeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/wK4O2GSYkxeORKxe_BzG-2lL4UE
Cc: draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning.all@tools.ietf.org,
 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "<websec@ietf.org>" <websec@ietf.org>, 
 The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] DISCUSS positions on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:37:52 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_65686F5C-010E-4F79-B88E-7B38796AE5FC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

What Barry and Tobias said.=20

Additionally:

On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
> In addition to these poibts, the feedback/recent errata from Eric =
Lawrence regarding HSTS is also extremely relevant to the discussion of =
HPKP, and we were waiting to see what actions, if any, the WG takes =
regarding that draft, lest we find ourselves immediately writing a bis =
to deal with those same points.
>=20
>=20
I don=92t know what is going to come of the issue that Eric found. It=92s =
entirely possible that nothing will come out of it, or that we=92ll have =
a document updating HSTS, or that we=92ll have a document profiling the =
deployment of HSTS.

Either way, this will require more discussion either in this working =
group or elsewhere. If we wanted to make a change like this to HPKP, =
that would require pulling the publication request and sending the =
document back to the working group. I don=92t think any of us wants =
that.

So, I think you should make all the necessary changes regardless of =
Eric=92s issue, so that we can progress HPKP. If that issue later leads =
to a new RFC, it can update and/or profile HPKP at the same time as it =
does HSTS.

This should not impede our progress.

Yoav


--Apple-Mail=_65686F5C-010E-4F79-B88E-7B38796AE5FC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">What =
Barry and Tobias =
said.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>Additionally:</div><div><br><div><div>On =
Aug 14, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Ryan Sleevi &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><p dir=3D"ltr">In addition to =
these poibts, the feedback/recent errata from Eric Lawrence regarding =
HSTS is also extremely relevant to the discussion of HPKP, and we were =
waiting to see what actions, if any, the WG takes regarding that draft, =
lest we find ourselves immediately writing a bis to deal with those same =
points.</p><div><br></div></blockquote><div>I don=92t know what is going =
to come of the issue that Eric found. It=92s entirely possible that =
nothing will come out of it, or that we=92ll have a document updating =
HSTS, or that we=92ll have a document profiling the deployment of =
HSTS.</div><div><br></div><div>Either way, this will require more =
discussion either in this working group or elsewhere. If we wanted to =
make a change like this to HPKP, that would require pulling the =
publication request and sending the document back to the working group. =
I don=92t think any of us wants that.</div><div><br></div><div>So, I =
think you should make all the necessary changes regardless of Eric=92s =
issue, so that we can progress HPKP. If that issue later leads to a new =
RFC, it can update and/or profile HPKP at the same time as it does =
HSTS.</div><div><br></div><div>This should not impede our =
progress.</div><div><br></div><div>Yoav</div><div><br></div></div></div></=
body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_65686F5C-010E-4F79-B88E-7B38796AE5FC--