Re: [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinning and beyond...)
Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Sat, 15 October 2011 00:57 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 A721521F8BBE for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
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=[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 RkLCE5I4W4Wl for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85C721F8B9B for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iabn5 with SMTP id n5so3314671iab.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Rex2Y0WtbVxeuOh/2YJ6yO9ot5lg8+XGXMun3q+NFKs=; b=Q5Fh7cGkVT0Iqi90G0KZ/I29ucrNVdKZ7tAR42oBPfaMUH2XoWQhRui7wXg57iK/I2 C6Nztu7u0y68IqugPhqEpCWsUEfcOQXOq2HUdMTtCAv/Dn2wbSnt2ARINumXWvmBBuPq 7tUOTvChvZY8sJlrrKsMBN0pj065Azk077ZfI=
Received: by 10.68.29.199 with SMTP id m7mr20032535pbh.112.1318640231098; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.245.1 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E98B219.2050609@KingsMountain.com>
References: <4E98B219.2050609@KingsMountain.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:56:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+cU71mAwZpUXjPHD3m0Dvh3Ty-0=DH4hUp1CyeYtjp_SmuV2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinning and beyond...)
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: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:57:12 -0000
On 14 October 2011 18:05, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote: > from <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-evans-palmer-hsts-pinning-00> : > > Thoughts? I agree. Separating it into a header may also enable it to find its way into other protocols that travel over TLS, and reuse some of the same parsing/validation code. -tom
- [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinning an… =JeffH
- Re: [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinnin… Tom Ritter
- Re: [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinnin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [websec] separate pinning header (was: Pinnin… Chris Palmer