My sense from talking with folks is that there isn't a lot of enthusiasm for supporting this use case in CSP at the present time. We're trying to concentrate on a core set of directives for the first iteration. If it helps reduce complexity, you might consider dropping option (1) for the time being.
Adam On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Roessler <[email protected]> wrote: > (Warning, this is cross-posted widely. One of the lists is the IETF websec > mailing list, to which the IETF NOTE WELL applies: > http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) > > > Folks, > > there appear to be at least three possible specifications addressing this > space, with similar but different designs: > > 1. A proposed deliverable in the WebAppSec group to take up on > X-Frame-Options and express those in CSP: > http://www.w3.org/2011/07/appsecwg-charter.html > > (We expect that this charter might go to the W3C AC for review as soon as > next week.) > > 2. The "From-Origin" draft (aka "Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Exclusion") > currently considered for publication as an FPWD in the Webapps WG: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0088.html > > This draft mentions integration into CSP as a possible path forward. > > 3. draft-gondrom-frame-options, an individual I-D mentioned to websec: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gondrom-frame-options/ > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg00388.html > > > How do we go about it? One path forward might be to just proceed as > currently planned and coordinate when webappsec starts working. > > Another path forward might be to see whether we can agree now on what forum > to take these things forward in (and what the coordination dance might look > like). > > Thoughts welcome. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <[email protected]> (@roessler) > > > > _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
