W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-05

From: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:40:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPP_2Sa1WrD7ZLpHOHKG=8v6GAaFQ68HosW+gZR3YBshnPequg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ryan-ietf@sleevi.com
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Made the following changes:
- Made explicit that the expiration date is relative to when the UA
received the header, not when the response was generated, consistent with
- Clarified that correctness checks can prevent CT compliance from being
checked and vice versa, with an example (
- Added media types IANA considerations section (
and will send mail to media-types@iana.org

I'm not quite sure what to do about IP certificates. I value consistency
with HSTS/HPKP and I'm not sure it makes sense to allow IP certificates for
Expect-CT for hypothetical use cases at the cost of diverging from

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:47 AM Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:56 PM Emily Stark <estark@google.com> wrote:
>> > Might have been blindly cribbed from HSTS/HPKP -- I don't remember
>> discussing it specifically for Expect-CT. Filed
>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/637
>> Thanks.
>> >> CAs can (and do) issue IP certificates, so why does this specifically
>> >> exclude those?  If this is a requirement imposed by CT, then please
>> >> cite that.  Otherwise, I think that this should allow IP literals.
>> >
>> >
>> > This was also cribbed from HSTS/HPKP. I'll try to find out the
>> motivation for including it in those specs; I'm a little wary of dropping
>> it from Expect-CT without understanding why it's there for the other two...
>> There was some confusion about the status of IP certificates at some
>> points in the past.  I don't think that it is necessary to concern
>> this spec with the types of identifier that need to be covered.
> Right, that's listed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797#appendix-A
> for HSTS, and as HPKP originally started as an option of HSTS, it retained
> that functionality. The difficulty in both interoperability (in clients)
> and obtaining an IP certificate (by servers)
Received on Monday, 11 June 2018 22:40:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:59 UTC