Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:38:23 -0700

Alexey replied:
 >
 > On 27/08/2012 21:18, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
 >> Hello dear websec fellows,
 >>
 >> <hat="WG chair">
 >> we have so far only very few comments regarding this. If you feel
 >> strongly either way, please say so ASAP, within the next 5 days (until
 >> Sep-1), otherwise we will have to go with the few comments we received
 >> to judge consensus based on them.
 >
 > <hat type="participant">
 >
 > I don't have strong feelings either way. I don't believe we have many
 > (if any at all) standardized extensions anyway.

yes, we don't have any imagined extensions on the table at this time. But given 
how we defined the ABNF, it's inherently extensible.

 > If people believe that there would be extensions,

I don't imagine any extensions at this time (as I've said before in this 
thread), however..

Ben Campbell's suggestion to select an IANA registry policy now is procedurally 
driven -- i.e., without specifying it now, someone could down the road create an 
independent-submission-stream I-D that extends the STS header, creates an IANA 
registry with a policy of their choice, and many of us might never notice

 > I have a slight
 > preference for picking an IANA policy now. Probably IETF review.

agreed.  I have already have the requisite language in -12..

    Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of the STS
    header field can be defined in other specifications, with a registry
    (having an IANA policy definition of FOO [RFC5226]) defined for them
    at such time.

..I just need to stick "IETF Review" in for FOO.

ok?

thanks,

=JeffH