On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 01:45:04PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it matters that B is in the same trust domain as A, wrt the
> audit log.
> Maybe you meant to say:
>
> Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B.
>
> B examines the audit log and determines that P
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 01:09:32PM -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote:
> HI Toerless,
>
> Yes that clarifies things and in line with the mental picture I had built
> in my mind. Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify the document with an
> explanation like you have stated above.
Mcr at one time
I'm not sure it matters that B is in the same trust domain as A, wrt the
audit log.
Maybe you meant to say:
Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B.
B examines the audit log and determines that P was previously registered
at another registrar A.
Now B can see that there is
Hi Ranga,
The IETF doesn't have a good way to capture improvement suggestions such
as this. Perhaps you could file an Errata suggesting a small tweak that would
improve the text a little. Even if the errata is rejected, it will still live
forever in
the tracker and undoubtedly reviewed if
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:55 AM Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Ranga,
>
> It depends ;-)
>
> Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B. B examines the audit log and
> determines that P was previously registered at another registrar A. Now
> B can see from theidentity of A in the audit log if A
Ranga,
It depends ;-)
Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B. B examines the audit log and
determines that P was previously registered at another registrar A. Now
B can see from theidentity of A in the audit log if A belongs to the
same trust domain as B. If yes, then B would likely
Hello,
I am reading the voucher artifact RFC 8366. I am confused about how the
"audit voucher" (page 6) is supposed to be used. Specifically, the text
says " The registrar mitigates a MiTM registrar by auditing that an
unknown MiTM registrar does not appear in the log entries. " How can it do
