- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:31:55 +0200
- To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=d2Nqzj2FJfW2OfidtUbowoKHuNv2Ot=Cq-67UD_auVug@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > Agree. > 2. We should include the application of 'unsafe-eval' semantics to the > CSSOM in the core CSP 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > Agree (though not at all strongly). > 3. We should include the suborigin sandboxing proposal in the core CSP > 1.1 feature set? Agree / Disagree > Disagree. I believe (like =JeffH) that this should be a separate spec. > 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. For the record, I wouldn't be terribly put out by removing the text regarding add-ons from section 3.3. I do not, however, see good reason to change Blink's extension-related behavior on this point. Also: the DOM API isn't in this poll, but is a pretty substantial open question nonetheless. I think we have two options for 1.1: 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. -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
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 09:32:44 UTC