- From: Neil Matatall <neilm@twitter.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:29:59 -0700
- To: "Carson, Cory" <Cory.Carson@boeing.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
> 1: We should close the feature set of CSP 1.1? Agree / Disagree agree > 2. We should include the application of 'unsafe-eval' semantics to the CSSOM in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree Defer > 3. We should include the suborigin sandboxing proposal in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree Disagree > 4. We should include the "Session Origin Security" policy in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree Disagree > 5. We should include the "cookie-scope" policy in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree Disagree > 6. We should make changes to core CSP 1.1 behavior (including possibly specifying a new directive about user script) as requested by Bug 23357? Agree / Disagree Disagree > 1. Flesh out Alex Russell's (http://infrequently.org/2013/05/use-case-zero/) and Yehuda Katz's (http://yehudakatz.com/2013/05/24/an-extensible-approach-to-browser-security-policy/) proposals. They are substantially more interesting than what we have at the moment. This has been on my plate for months. >2. Kill the DOM API for the moment, and do #1 in 1.2, along with a more complete integration with ServiceWorkers. >I'd like to do #1, but #2 is probably more realistic. I'll break this out into a separate thread. I agree this should be discussed :) I'm leaning towards #2... On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Carson, Cory <Cory.Carson@boeing.com> wrote: > > > From: Brad Hill [mailto:hillbrad@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:12 PM > To: public-webappsec@w3.org > Subject: [webappsec] Reminder: please send your preferences > > This is a request again, for all WG members, to please send your response to this simple poll before our call on Tuesday: > > 1: We should close the feature set of CSP 1.1? Agree / Disagree > > Abstain > > 2. We should include the application of 'unsafe-eval' semantics to the CSSOM in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > > Agree > > 3. We should include the suborigin sandboxing proposal in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > > Disagree > > 4. We should include the "Session Origin Security" policy in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > > Disagree > > 5. We should include the "cookie-scope" policy in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > > Disagree > > 6. We should make changes to core CSP 1.1 behavior (including possibly specifying a new directive about user script) as requested by Bug 23357? Agree / Disagree > > Disagree > > --- > > Boeing is interested in suborigin sandboxing and "cookie-scope" because they address security concerns of large multi-component web applications. However, it is Boeing's opinion that 3 and 5 be incubated longer before Boeing backs them. Eg, perhaps there is a way to adjust suborigin sandboxing to include 'cookie-scope's goals? > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 16:30:28 UTC