Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

Shed color suggestion withdrawn.

On Fri Jan 30 2015 at 11:21:38 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> 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.)
>