Subject: [websec] new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:57:43 -0700

New rev:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13

please see change log excerpt included below for details. AFAIK this is ready 
for submission to IESG and IETF-wide Last Call.

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-13.txt

side-by-side diff from previous rev:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-13.txt

All issue tickets are closed.

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 -12 to -13:

       1.  Addressed the IANA registry and IANA registry policy questions
           raised in Ben Campbel's Gen-ART LC review.  Selected "IETF
           Review" for IANA policy.  See the portion of this thread from
           this message onwards for details: <https://www.ietf.org/
           mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01355.html>

       2.  Clarified the questions regarding max-age=0 interacting with
           includeSubdomains.  Expanded section 5.  HSTS Mechanism
           Overview, Added clarification text and forward ref to S 8.1
           from S 6.1.1.  Added two additional examples to S 6.2 which
           contain max-age=0.  See the thread rooted here for questions
           that informed this: <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
           websec/current/msg01347.html>

       3.  upgraded ref to draft-ietf-dane-protocol to be to RFC6698.

       Changes from -11 to -12:

       1.  Addressed various issues in Ben Campbel's Gen-ART LC review.
           See this message for details: <https://www.ietf.org/
           mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01324.html>

       Changes from -10 to -11:

<snip/>

---
end

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:13:24 -0400

> please see change log excerpt included below for details. AFAIK this is
> ready for submission to IESG and IETF-wide Last Call.

IETF-wide last call already happened, from 11 to 25 July.  The GenART
review was from that.

I'll be putting this on the 27 Sept IESG telechat.

Barry

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:44:26 +0800

Hello Jeff and websec fellows,

<hat="WG chair"> and <hat="document shepherd">
thanks a lot for the latest version and to my understanding it indeed 
closes all open issues.

For all fyi: Please note that the update in section 6.1  item 5.
declares that future registries will be using IETF review for 
creation/defining.

"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 IETF Review [RFC5226]) defined
    for them at such time."

There has been some discussion on this, but to my understanding no major 
conflicts have been raised with the proposed approach.

<taking all hats off>

Best regards and see you soon in Atlanta,

Tobias

On 15/09/12 07:57, =JeffH wrote:
> please see change log excerpt included below for details. AFAIK this 
> is ready for submission to IESG and IETF-wide Last Call.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec