New rev:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-14

please see change log excerpt included below for details. This rev addresses comments raised during IESG review..

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec/ballot/

All issue tickets are closed.

full issue ticket list for strict-transport-sec:
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/query?status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&component=strict-transport-sec&order=id>

Redline spec diff from previous rev:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-14.txt

side-by-side diff from previous rev:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-14.txt


Change Log for this rev is below.


=JeffH


==============================================================

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 -13 to -14:

      1.  Added a new subsection entitled "Considerations for Offering
          Unsecured HTTP Services at Alternate Ports or Subdomains of an
          HSTS Host" to section 11.4 "Implications of
          includeSubDomains".  This is addresses Robert Sparks' Discuss
          point (1): <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
          draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec/ballot/#robert-sparks>

          Also s/flag/directive/ for all uses of e.g. "includeSubDomains
          flag", and noted that the presence of an includeSubDomains
          directive in an STS header field means it is "asserted".

      2.  Added a definition of an expired known HSTS Host, as well as a
          stipulation that the UA must evict expired known HSTS hosts
          from the cache (to section 8.1.1 "Noting an HSTS Host -
          Storage Model").  Added an "unexpired" adjective appropriately
          to section 8.2 "Known HSTS Host Domain Name Matching".  This
          is addresses Robert Sparks' Discuss point (2): <https://
          datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
          draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec/ballot/#robert-sparks>

      3.  Added a note 14.4 reason for clients to consider providing a
          way for users to remove entries from the cache.  This is
          addresses Robert Sparks' first Comment: <https://
          datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
          draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec/ballot/#robert-sparks>

      4.  Noted in 2nd para of section 7.1 that HTTP is running over
          secure transport.  This is addresses Robert Sparks' second
          comment ("nit"): <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
          draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec/ballot/#robert-sparks>

      5.  Struck the "or perhaps others" phrase from Section 7.  Added
          Section 14 "Underlying Secure Transport Considerations" to Sec
          Cons.  This is addresses a portion of Eric Rescorla's
          feedback.

      6.  Added a NOTE to Section 8.3 URI Loading and Port Mapping
          regarding non-HTTPS servers running at non-standard ports
          identified in URIs.  Added item (6) to Appendix A explaining
          the port mapping design decision.  This addresses the other
          portion of EKR's feedback.

      Changes from -12 to -13:

<snip/>

---
end
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec

Reply via email to