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

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:45:35 -0700

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