See also: IRC log
<ekr> ekr is at Mozilla
(corrected from agenda)
no objections to unanimous approval of minutes
CORS is approved to be published as a Proposed Rec, just waiting a poll setup to allow AC reps to file comments
<ekr> I will be aroundish
<dhuang3> bhill: a number open actions to resolve next meeting.. Is 17th good time?
plan on cancelling Dec 31st?
<neilm> no objections on either
<gopal> 17th ok with me
Action bhill2 to cancel Dec 31st call
<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Cancel dec 31st call [on Brad Hill - due 2013-12-10].
<dhuang3> ekr: .. came to consensus that we needed to update the spec..
<ekr> dhuan3: that wasn't me talking. probably bhill2?
<dhuang3> bhill: do we see in future that workers might not be same-origin?
<dhuang3> ... workers not exactly same as iframes, maybe another directive to cover workers
<dhuang3> worker-src? consider issues where workers created from data blobs, etc.. ? should summarize ideas and proposals to list
roughly: dveditz in favor of keeping script-src, brad and garrett in favor of a new directive but not frame-src, abarth neutral
<dhuang3> dan: currently, workers don't get access to dom, cookies, but have access to localstorage, indexdb, or possibly more in future
brad wonders what a non-same origin worker would look like from a security model
<dhuang3> dan: according to ian, ... we should expect cross-origin workers, ... workers more like frame than script so don't like the idea of lumping into frame-src. .... compatibility issues?
<dhuang3> adam: CORS is more widely used now so might not want to break things..
<dhuang3> bhill: is this apache bug? the CORS allow header should not be stripped?
spec says that headers should be stripped unless used for caching.. is Access-Control-Allow-Origin a header influencing caching?
dveditz: likes Firefox's behavior, wants to know what Adam thinks
abarth: understands, but given
wide use is a little scared to change the behavior
... and debugging caching issues in the field to understand root causes is difficult
... can do it if important, preference is to be conservative
let's follow up on list
sounds like garrett's patch has no objections
<dhuang3> adam: will merge garrett's patch
dveditz: we may have issues on name change with IETF WebSec
action bhill2 to raise frame-options vs. frame-ancestors name on IETF WebSec list
<trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Raise frame-options vs. frame-ancestors name on ietf websec list [on Brad Hill - due 2013-12-10].
<dhuang3> dan: frame-ancestors is more self-documenting, but frame-options would work... wouldn't mind either... But frame-options in UI Security is kind of confusing
I have received interest from Fredrick Braun of Mozilla, Joel Weinberger of Google and Devdatta Akhawe of UCBerkeley to serve as editors. If you have concerns, please bring them directly to ekr or myself.