Re: CfC to publish a LCWD of CSP 1.1

If we're going to do this as "Level 2", which seems like consensus, we should also do a shortname change from "CSP11" to "CSP2".

Wendy - can this be simultaneous with the LCWD transition request, or do we need to get the shortname change approved first, then the transition?

-Brad

On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> I've put up http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/content-security-policy/published/2014-06-24-CSP-2-LCWD.html with an 8-week deadline (13th of August), the "level 2" rename, and 'reflected-xss' and 'referrer' marked as 'at risk'.
> 
> Brad, Dan, and Wendy, could you kick off the LC publication process?
> 
> -mike
> 
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91
> 
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
> Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> 1. Is 8 weeks an acceptable timeline for the WG? If so, I'll whip up a LCWD document and hand it over for publication.
> 
> 2. I'm happy to mark reflected-xss as at risk; if Microsoft or Apple agrees that it's a reasonable thing to implement, wonderful. If not, then it'll be no less proprietary than the 'X-XSS-Protection' header it's trying to replace.
> 
> -mike
> 
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91
> 
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
> Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/2014 1:03 AM, Mike West wrote:
> >   1) How long should the LC period be?   Dan pointed out that summer is
> >   difficult to enlist people's time.  I suggested that perhaps we end LC
> >   immediately before TPAC and we can use the session time there to
> >   resolve any issues raised.
> >
> > 3.5 months is a long time, even during the summer.
> 
> I thought one month was too short, but I was thinking more like 8 weeks
> would accommodate people. That way whether people take vacation early or
> late in the summer they'll be around for at least part of LC. I don't
> think we should wait until October.
> 
> > Blink has implementations of both these directives. If other vendors
> > (Mozilla? Microsoft? Apple?) aren't interested, then we could certainly
> > mark them as "at risk" (although I think it's premature, since we
> > haven't yet issued a call for implementations). Perhaps folks from those
> > browsers could weigh in?
> 
> reflected-xss wouldn't do anything in our browser since there's no xss
> filter to turn off. We won't error if we encounter an unknown directive
> so I guess we "support" it to that extent? Somehow I don't think that's
> the kind of second implementation W3 is looking for.
> 
> -Dan Veditz
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 20:50:33 UTC