Re: CfC to publish a LCWD of CSP 1.1

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Brad Hill <> wrote:

> We discussed this on today's call.  The consensus was that the
> outstanding issues can proceed to full resolution during LC, and we
> can advance, but a few issues were raised I'd like to work out here
> before finalizing the transition:


> 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. Do you think we really
need that long? If there's consensus, great, but I'd suggest something more
like 8 weeks. I'd like to keep things moving, and that already seems like a
reasonably long period of time for feedback.

> 2) Who should we specifically reach out to for review and comment?
> I'd suggest the WHATWG Fetch team (though they are watching this list
> already), the IETF WebSec group, and W3C Security IG as a start.  Also
> SVG WG.   Others?

The privacy interest group would be reasonable, given previous concerns
about the reporting functionality. I'd also suggest looping the Web
Applications WG in, as CSP looms large in interaction with things being
specified in that group.

> 3) Glenn asked if we want to mark any features as "at risk" at this
> time.  It's not necessary, but good to start thinking about it now.
> The referrer and reflected-xss directives come to mind both because of
> current discussions to possibly move them elsewhere, and because we
> only have one confirmed intent to implement reflected-xss at this
> time.

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?


Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 08:04:05 UTC