On 2014-08-28 10:01, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2014-08-27 07:44, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
Fixing editorial issues like Julians’ comments about references is fine, and
could even be done *after* IESG review. ...
...
FWIW, I believe the ABNF issues (which are *not* editorial) absolutely need to
be fixed as well.
Hi, Julian
I don’t want to nit-pick the meaning of the word “editorial”. But anyone who’s
read the draft knows what a PKP header looks like. I don’t think there’s any
controversy about what is and is not a valid PKP header. So changing the ABNF
to reflect this existing understanding, is something that I don’t think
requires polling the group.
...
The issue is that the ABNF is ambiguous about whether
Public-Key-Pins: max-age=3000;
pin-xyz=abc;
is syntactically valid or not. I believe it should be, because otherwise
parsers would need to special-case the "pin-*" parameters when parsing.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
