Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not to bikeshed too much, but everywhere else we have a subtractive
> combination logic for policy.  We're proposing (with good reason) a
> replacement model here.  I only wonder how to make that as clear as
> possible.
>
> Perhaps instead of "Content-Security-Policy-Pin",
> "Content-Security-Policy-Origin-Default" ?
>

Hrm. Two things come to mind:

1. We're not pinning to an origin, but to a host, or set of hosts (via
'includeSubDomains').

2. Pinning is fairly well understood (by people who care about this sort of
thing). I think calling it a "default" is probably more accurate, but it
still invites the same questions about how the specified policy interacts
with policies delivered by a page. I don't think "default" is enough to
explain the nuances, and if folks will have questions anyway, I'd prefer to
keep the word that I think evokes the right sort of concept.

*shrug* But whatever. A better argument against "origin default" is that
the spec would have a shortname of "COD", which doesn't sound awesome
enough. :)

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

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.)