- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:31:46 +0100
- To: Brad Hill <bhill@paypal-inc.com>
- Cc: dveditz@mozilla.com, public-webappsec@w3.org, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=f6Bv7Msc65PvcKpOagrH=hdxYxik7qTCu0etkXXNnfVw@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for the link, it's very informative. The only reservation I have is that it seems to imply a 1:1 relationship between the URL and the resource being described (modulo collisions). Nonces are meant to collide, probably multiple times on a single page. That said, I don't feel strongly about the format. I'd be happy to adopt that format wholesale, assuming the general idea (which, the more I think about, the more strongly I favor) is acceptable. -mike On Mar 18, 2013 5:19 PM, "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote: > <hat type="individual"> > > I like it. > > </hat> > > <hat type="chair"> > > This draft is relevant to consider vs. inventing a new identifier syntax, > though it is less compact than what you suggest: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 > > </hat> > > Brad Hill > > ------------------------- > From: Mike West [mailto:mkwst@google.com] > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:04 AM > To: public-webappsec@w3.org; dveditz@mozilla.com; Adam Barth > Subject: Nonces/hashes in source expressions. > > Before I copy/paste a bunch of text to stub out a 'style-nonce' directive > for CSP 1.1, I'd like to run something by you lovely folks that I think > we've talked about once or twice on the calls. It seems like it could > reduce repetition and confusion if we fold nonces or hashes into the > existing directives as another type of source expression. > > As a strawman, how would you feel about rewriting 'script-nonce ABCDEFG' > as 'script-src nonce:ABCDEFG'? This would make an "or" relationship with > 'script-src' clear on the one hand, and make room for something like > 'script-src sha1:...' on the other. I think it would simplify the structure > in a nice way, and seems more comprehensible and reusable in general. > > I'm sure others of you will have ideas about syntax (perhaps it's a bad > idea to replicate scheme-like structures... maybe '#' would be a better > separator, since it's sometimes read as "hash" anyway), but I'm hoping the > general idea is reasonable. > > > -- > Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Developer Advocate > Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany > Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 >
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 16:32:20 UTC