Howdy again,
Please note that there are a fair number of non-trivial and/or nuanced changes
in several places in draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-09 (relative to rev
-06) in response to various folks' [1] reviews (thx! And thx to PaulH for his
ack on -08 recently).
It'd be great to get some acknowledgement that the changes meet expectations,
especially those in these sections..
6.1. Strict-Transport-Security HTTP Response Header Field
6.1.1. The max-age Directive
6.1.2. The includeSubDomains Directive
8.1. Strict-Transport-Security Response Header Field Processing
8.1.1. Noting a HSTS Host
8.2. Known HSTS Host Domain Name Matching
8.3. URI Loading and Port Mapping
9. Domain Name IDNA-Canonicalization
10.1. HSTS Policy expiration time considerations
10.2. Using HSTS in conjunction with self-signed public-key certificates
11.4. Disallow Mixed Security Context Loads
14. Security Considerations (just the new intro paragraphs)
14.6. Bogus Root CA Certificate Phish plus DNS Cache Poisoning Attack
Appendix A. Design Decision Notes
There are also (editorial) changes in several other sections.
I believe these changes address issue tickets #s: 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45,
and 46. I'll be closing these tickets soon unless issues are raised.
Please also see the change log below.
This URI will get you a side-by-side diff between -06 and -09..
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06.txt&url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-09.txt
thanks,
=JeffH
[1] Alexey M.
Julian R.
Murray K.
Paul Hoffman
Peter StA
Tobias G.
Barry L.
==============================================================
Appendix D. Change Log
[RFCEditor: please remove this section upon publication as an RFC.]
Changes are grouped by spec revision listed in reverse issuance
order.
D.1. For draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
Changes from -08 to -09:
1. Added IESG Note to Section 3 "Conformance Criteria" per Barry
Leiba's suggestion on the mailing list. <https://
www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01200.html>
2. Added additional requirement #5 to requirements for STS header
field directives in Section 6.1 per Alexey's review. This
completes the addressing of issue ticket #45.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/45>
3. Addressed editorial feedback in Murray's AppsDir review of
-06.
Most all of these changes were addressing detailed/small
editorial items, however note the addition of a couple of
introductory paragraphs in the Security Considerations
section, as well as a re-written and expanded Section 14.6
"Bogus Root CA Certificate Phish plus DNS Cache Poisoning
Attack", as well the new item #5 to Appendix A "Design
Decision Notes".
This addresses issue ticket #46.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/46>
Changes from -07 to -08:
1. Clarified requirement #4 for STS header field directives in
Section 6.1, and removed "(which "update" this
specification)". Also added explicit "max-age=0" to Section
6.1.1. Reworked final sentence in 2nd para of Section 13.
This addresses issue ticket #45.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/45>
Changes from -06 to -07:
1. Various minor/modest editorial tweaks throughout as I went
through it pursuing the below issue tickets. Viewing a visual
diff against -06 revision recommended.
2. fixed some minor editorial issues noted in review by Alexey,
fixes noted in here: <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
websec/current/msg01163.html>
3. Addressed ABNF exposition issues, specifically inclusion of
quoted-string syntax for directive values. Fix STS header
ABNF such that a leading ";" isn't required. Add example of
quoted-string-encoded max-age-value. This addresses (re-
opened) issue ticket #33.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/33>
4. Reworked sections 8.1 through 8.3 to ensure matching algorithm
and resultant HSTS Policy application is more clear, and that
it is explicitly stipulated to not muck with attributes of
superdomain matching Known HSTS Hosts. This addresses issue
ticket #37.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/37>
5. Added reference to [I-D.ietf-dane-protocol], pared back
extraneous discussion in section 2.2, and updated discussion
in 10.2 to accomodate TLSA (nee DANE). This addresses issue
ticket #39.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/39>
6. Addressed various editorial items from issue ticket #40.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/40>
7. Loosened up the language regarding redirecting "http" requests
to "https" in section 7.2 such that future flavors of
permanent redirects are accommodated. This addresses issue
ticket #43.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/43>
8. Reworked the terminology and language in Section 9, in
particular defining the term "putative domain name string" to
replace "valid Unicode-encoded string-serialized domain name".
This addresses issue ticket #44.
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/44>
Changes from -05 to -06:
.
.
.
.
---
end
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
