Subject: [websec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-07.txt> (HTTP Header Field X-Frame-Options) to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:37:55 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec) to
consider the following document:
- 'HTTP Header Field X-Frame-Options'
  <draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-07.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   To improve the protection of web applications against Clickjacking,
   this specification describes the X-Frame-Options HTTP response header
   field that declares a policy communicated from the server to the
   client browser on whether the browser may display the transmitted
   content in frames that are part of other web pages.  This
   informational document serves to document the existing use and
   specification of this X-Frame-Options HTTP response header field.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:57:40 +0200

On 7/29/13 11:37 AM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec)
> to consider the following document: - 'HTTP Header Field
> X-Frame-Options' <draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-07.txt> as
> Informational RFC

Section 1 states:

   This specification provides informational documentation about the
   current use and definition of the X-Frame-Options HTTP header field.
   Given that the "X-" construction is deprecated [RFC6648], the X
   -Frame-Options header field will in the future be replaced by the
   Frame-Options directive in the Content Security Policy Version 1.1
   [CSP-1-1].

IMO, RFC 6648 does not necessitate deprecating the X-Frame-Options
header field in favor of the Frame-Options header field, since RFC
6648 is not retroactive. We might want to make the relationship
clearer here.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/