As we hurtle (we hope) towards publication of the bis document,
it's a good idea to take a look at the just-published RFC Editor
style guide and make sure that the document is in alignment with
it. Content is the core question but documents get hung up on
formal nits more often than they should.
On 9/29/14 11:26 AM, Rick Andrews wrote:
> The CABF Baseline Requirements don't require the intermediate to be
> technically constrained, and most are not. The language about
> technical constraints is there to address Mozilla's CA policy
> (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/s
On 9/29/14 4:55 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> Logs shouldn't be enforcing *anything*. A log isn't a judge, it's a record.
Thank you.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Hi, all:
Problems around precertificate contents and formats were among
the things we first discussed when the working group was chartered,
and here we are, still at it. There are basically two problems
that fall under the "precertificate" rubric: 1) whether or not
it's possible/reasonable to inc
On 10/3/14 11:26 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> I'm confused by the last sentence above. One can issue a cert at the
> same time a pre-cert is issued, but the cert does not contain the
> SCT that will be generated by the log, so the parallel issuance seems
> redundant,
> and I'm not sure how it helps.
Hi, all:
Many thanks to Henrik for fixing the problem with the issue tracker.
Changes are now being gatewayed to the mailing list.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 10/16/14 7:09 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> We (the 6962-bis editors) would like to propose that we replace the
> existing precertificate formats with a TBSCertificate wrapped in PKCS#7.
> This lays to rest, we think, any possible confusion with X509v3 certs,
> whilst allowing a simple mapping between
In case you've missed it, the final agenda is out:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.html
We're meeting on Monday afternoon from 3:20 to 6:30.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
You all may have noticed that Linus has uploaded three
drafts on gossip protocols for CT. Please give those
a read. In the short term we need something we can
publish as an experimental standard, so please give some
thought about how to move this work forward. Once
there's been some discussion
One of the open issues (ticket 34:
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/34)
concerns SCT syntax, with Steve Kent arguing that either ASN.1 should
be used or that there needs to be a clearer justification for the
choice of 5246 representation (see RFC 5246, section 4). We need to
come to a d
You may have noticed a recent burst of activity on the issue
tracker, including the closure of issues 17, 26, 37, 42, 43, and
45. Please review the tickets with an eye towards identifying
items which might block consensus on future draft revisions.
A 6962-bis revision should be out shortly.
Melin
To make it easier to review recent changes, you can see a
list of them here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/query?changetime=2015-01-01..2015-01-07&col=id&col=summary&col=changetime&col=status&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=resolution&order=priority
Melinda
__
First, I need to apologize for being largely checked out the
past while - I've been down with a particularly virulent flu
and am still largely flattened by it. I'll do better.
Second, taking my chair hat off, a couple of comments on the
syntax question: I'm not sure that there have been any
techn
On 3/3/15 11:52 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Is there a good reason that the text for proposed resolution of
> issues is not being sent via messages to this list, as is common IETF
> practice? Someone who wants to track what is happening in trans
> should be able to look at the mail and see what is be
On 3/9/15 5:06 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Thanks for the new revision, Linus. I'm also happy to present this work
> in Dallas, if there's room on the agenda for it.
There is - this is an important topic and we' like to spend some time
on it. We'll get a draft agenda out in the next few day
Hi, all:
We've been banging away on the SCT encoding issue for a year,
and we really must close it out. Paul and I have been doing due
diligence on the issue in the background. We made a concerted effort
to find technical problems with the current text that would exclude the
possibility of allow
A first draft of the agenda for next week's meeting has been
posted at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/agenda/trans/.
Please let us know if anything needs to be added or changed.
Also, if you'll be leading a discussion please get your slides
to us pretty quickly, even if they're a rough fi
On 3/16/15 1:41 PM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
> Sorry for not being clear on this earlier, but "Gossiping in CT" is the
> only draft that's been updated and the only one to be considered for
> now. It has no references to any of the other two and should stand by
> itself.
Okay, thanks - I'll get that
Hi, all:
I am not really willing to re-open discussion of the encoding. We've
been spinning our wheels for a long time and it's pretty clear that
nobody is willing to compromise. Given that and given my own
disinterest in having chairs make decisions about technical
disagreements, my basic posit
As I've said several times, unless there's new information, we're
done discussing this.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Hi, all:
We'd be grateful if those of you preparing slide sets for Monday's
session could send in your slides so we can get those uploaded.
Many thanks!
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Hi, all:
This is a call for adoption of a working group deliverable
providing a threat analysis for CT, based on the summary
provided by http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-trans-0.pdf
and on previous discussion on this mailing list.
This call closes on Friday, April 10. Please
Much gratitude to Rich for getting the minutes done. All,
please review.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 3/27/15 6:43 PM, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
last consideration about the I-D - there are a bunch of OID values that
are used throughout the document that are using PRIVATE (Google) OIDs in
the document - this is *completely wrong*! Private OIDs should not be
used for I-Ds.
It's fine while the
The oddest thing, I think, about this discussion is the
apparent expectation that working group drafts be adopted
in final shape. That's not what happens. Indeed, if
it were, we wouldn't need working groups in the first place.
Melinda
___
Trans maili
The assertion that this kind of trivia needs to be resolved before
adopting a working group document is a complete non-starter. That
is just simply incorrect - a matter of personal preference, at
best.
I'd like to propose that the draft authors create a ticket
to the effect that the IANA consider
The minutes from our session at IETF 92 have been uploaded.
Many, many thanks to Rich Salz for recording these. Please
send any corrections, comments, etc. to the mailing list.
Note that we currently have a call out for adoption of a
working group deliverable providing a threat analysis for
CT.
FYI.
Melinda
Original Message
Subject: Date change for CARIS submissions
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:17:04 -0400
From: IAB Chair
Reply-To: i...@ietf.org
To: ietf list , i...@ietf.org
Dear colleagues,
The Co-ordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale (CARIS) workshop
program c
On 4/1/15 12:47 PM, Karen Seo wrote:
> Sorry for redundant vote -- looked for my earlier vote and somehow
> missed it.
That's okay. We don't count "votes" - we look for consensus
and at any discussion that's taken place around adoption, so
no apology (or adjustment) necessary.
Melinda
Thanks! I was wondering why we hadn't heard from him yet. When he's back
we can work out a timeline etc.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 5/24/15 9:11 PM, Karen Seo wrote:
> My apologies for the delay in delivering the threat analysis draft.
> Steve asked me to do some editing on it and I've been held up by an
> unfortunate combination of project/contract issues and my disk drive
> getting corrupted. Barring unforeseen problems,
Hello:
As a general rule (and it's a good rule), working group chairs
do not get deeply involved with the technical work of their
working group and they do not author or edit working group
deliverables. Our situation in trans with regard to dnssec
logging is that there's substantial interest, but
Excellent - thanks! I've updated the wiki:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/wiki
If there are other implementations underway,
please let us know.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
The initial draft of the threat analysis document is out.
Please give it a careful read and post comments to the mailing
list.
Steve, if you could highlight issues that need particular
attention, that can get working group discussion off to a
strong start.
Melinda
Forwarded Message ---
Thought this one should be run past the working group: should
a description of the implications of clients not doing certain
optional checks be moved to the threat analysis draft?
Melinda
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #55 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations:
On 6/8/15 11:20 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> Future implementers will read the 6962-bis RFC. How do we ensure that
> these implementers are made aware that the 6962-bis Security
> Considerations don't give the full picture (of how to build a secure CT
> ecosystem)?
>
> I suggest that the 6962-bis S
On 6/10/15 4:49 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Hmm. Not sure what closing this means! We should leave our existing
> OIDs? And continue to allocate from the Google arc? Or what?
Yes and yes, and and an OID section to the IANA considerations.
Melinda
___
Trans
To be honest I'm not sure exactly who's deployed what
at this point, although we have been tracking implementations
of the protocol (see: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/wiki).
But this is very different from what Amazon is doing.
They're basically creating an additional certification
aut
Great, Matt - thanks. Sorry about the Trac problem -
small consolation but this does happen unfortunately
often.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 7/2/15 6:19 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Based on several issuer tracker comments from yesterday I believe there's
> an evolving agreement that 6962-bis is really just a description of log
> operation and interfaces, and that specs for browsers, Monitors and the
> Audit function will appear elsewhe
Note that a revision of the threat analysis draft has
been posted. Please give it a read and post comments
to the mailing list.
Thanks,
Melinda
Forwarded Message
Subject: [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis-01.txt
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:25:51 -0700
From: i
Hi, all:
As you may have noticed, we've been scheduled for our session
on Thursday afternoon (23 July), 17:40 - 19:10. If you expect
to have an agenda slot but will be presenting remotely (i.e.
you will not be physically present in the room in Prague),
please let us know so that we can request re
On 7/10/15 6:23 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> nice of you to reaffirm that Google doesn't care about IETF standards
> in this context.
Steve, this kind of commentary really needs to stop.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
On 7/17/15 3:40 PM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> GitHub is what the 6962-bis authors are using to collaboratively edit
> the document. A GitHub pull request must be created for any proposed
> text before that proposed text is reviewed and incorporated into the
> document.
I think it's not a great idea
Hi, all:
This is a call for adoption of
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct/
as a working group deliverable. The call closes on August 6.
Thanks,
Melinda & Paul
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma
Thanks, Rich!
Melinda
On 7/23/15 11:58 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Please send/post corrections.
>
> Paul, WG Status update
> Charger unchanged; need to reset milestone.
>
> Eran RFC6962-bis status+
> Still needs some tweaks. Suggests waiting for Google to finish their
> implementation to clean o
03:24 -0800
From: Melinda Shore
To: trans@ietf.org
Hi, all:
This is a call for adoption of
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct/
as a working group deliverable. The call closes on August 6.
Thanks,
Melinda & Paul
___
Tran
Hi, all:
Thank you for your feedback on the call for working group
adoption of draft-linux-trans-gossip-ct. It's very clear
that there's widespread support for adoption, and that we've
both got people to work on the draft and to review it. Bryan
Ford raised some technical issues during the discu
Hi, all:
We'd like to make sure that our document editors are getting
sufficient feedback on drafts for them to be able to move the
documents along. This would be an excellent time for you to
review the attack model draft (here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis/)
a
Hi, all:
I've posted a draft agenda for our session in Yokohama.
As always we'll be focused on moving work along and plan
to use our time primarily for discussion. Please send
any corrections, updates, and so on.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/agenda/agenda-94-trans
Melinda
__
Hi, all:
This is a reminder that we're meeting next Monday. Please
take a look at the agenda
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/trans/)
and be ready for document discussion. If you have an agenda
slot, *please* get slides to me as early as possible. We will
likely have a number
Thanks, Rich. Participants: please send comments/corrections/etc.
to the mailing list.
On 11/2/15 2:38 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
Certificate Transparency (trans)
IETF 94; 13:00-15:00 Monday 2 November 2015
Chairs: Melinda Shore, Paul Wouters
Minutes by Rich Salz
STATUS UPDATE
On 11/5/15 12:26 AM, Tom Ritter wrote:
A process question for the chairs I'd say. Probably websec?
I haven't discussed this with Paul but my personal feeling is
that this wouldn't belong in the trans working group for two
reasons: 1) we are focused on specifying actual CT mechanisms,
and 2) the
I was quite surprised to see this come through given that
we've said repeatedly that the threat document isn't going
to block the -bis document moving forward. A better
approach might be to propose text for the -bis draft.
Melinda
Forwarded Message
Subject: [Trans] [trans] #11
Hi, Tom:
Is there something specific you'd like to see happen here?
This looks more like a general comment than an issue that
can be addressed in the document. That is to say, I'm not
sure why this is a ticket.
Melinda
Forwarded Message
Subject: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip):
Hi, all:
At IETF 94 several people volunteered to review the
threat analysis draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis/).
This is by way of a nudge of those who volunteered (Eran,
Bryan, Rich, Karen). We really can't move the document
towards working group last cal
On 12/17/15 11:09 AM, Karen Seo wrote:
> Hi, Melinda,
>
> I have looked at the draft and provided comments that have been
> addressed in the current version. However, I wasn't at IETF 94 -- It
> must have been a different Karen who volunteered. Maybe Karen
> O'Donoghue or Karen Nielsen?
It was
Hi, all:
We're trying to get a handle on how things are going and
one question that's come up is why there haven't been reviews
posted of the threat analysis draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis/).
Is it that
. the document is ready for working group last call
Many thanks, Rich. Our goal here is to have the next
version of the draft in sufficiently good shape for
working group last call and broadly supported by the
working group. We want to avoid surprises during
IESG review or IETF last call, so we really need a
few more reviews before moving it along
We'd be very grateful for some discussion of this so
that we can close it (one way or the other) and move
forward.
Thanks,
Melinda
On 1/11/16 8:31 AM, Karen Seo wrote:
Folks,
I agree with the approach discussed on the list of simplifying 6962-bis
to focus only on specifications for the CT log
On 1/15/16 4:27 AM, Karen Seo wrote:
There are a number of issues (for the non-log components) that WG
members have asked be addressed that the existing 6962-bis text doesn't
cover.
It's becoming extremely difficult to gauge consensus because
we're getting so few comments on these proposals, an
On 1/18/16 8:03 PM, Karen Seo wrote:
3. Could the WG please review/consider the drafts on CA/Subject,
Browsers, and Monitor/Auditor? These "backfill" many of the missing
pieces. Also, putting all the text on a given topic in one place
should make things easier for the reviewer and
On 1/29/16 12:57 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
I have authored about 25 RFCs, 18 of which are standards track, and 3
or 4 of which are BCPs. I think my experience in this regard makes
me a good judge of what constitutes a well-written, standards track
security area RFC. I'm sorry to say that 6962-bis (
Hi, all:
We're looking for feedback on ticket 121
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/121).
The issue is this (from Steve Kent):
"After Prague I agreed that log metadata can be supplied by browser
vendors for TLS clients hat are browsers. However, max chain length,
which was jus
On 3/10/16 2:08 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
I don't read github posts of proposed text. I read I-Ds when they are
posted, or text sent to the list, the common methods for IETF WG
discussions of suggested text for I-Ds.
That's certainly your prerogative, but git is a very
widely used tool, Github i
On 3/14/16 12:18 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
Looks good. Clever attack; dkg has a twisted mind J
Do we generally credit individuals in docs?
Yes, there should be an acknowledgments section when
appropriate.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.or
On 3/30/16 6:25 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
I'll discuss whether my attack scenarios are accurate and match the
spirit of DKGs original
message with him, not you.
Just a friendly reminder that the draft is a working group
document, not an individual contribution.
Melinda
_
On 3/30/16 7:33 AM, David A. Cooper wrote:
Is it appropriate for a document editor to declare that he will ignore
input from members of the working group?
Of course not.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis
On 3/30/16 9:04 AM, David A. Cooper wrote:
If Steve would just describe DKG's attack instead of trying to use this
as a forum for advancing his personal beliefs about X.509, then we
wouldn't have to deal with these metaphysical arguments.
I understand that you and some other participants are
fr
As of this afternoon, we have only one remaining open ticket
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/124) on
6962-bis, concerning the clarity of the introduction.
Personally, I find it sufficiently clear with respect to the
entire document (that is to say that the introduction
provides s
There's apparently been a change in remote participation
policy - please note that it seems that if you wish to
participate from a remote location, or even just listen,
you'll need to register for the meeting as a remote
participant (no charge).
Melinda
Forwarded Message
Subje
Hi, all:
At the moment it doesn't look like there's much on the
table[*], although we've got some pending work on gossip and
on logging other types of data (DNSSEC, blobs). I'm
hopeful that we'll be making progress on both types of
documents and it's possible there will be issues that will
benef
This is to announce the beginning of working group last call
for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis. The purpose of working group
last call is to establish working group consensus that the
document is ready for publication.
Please give the draft a thorough review and post comments to
this mailing list
Hi, all:
We've put in a session request for the upcoming IETF meeting,
but may choose to cancel it if we feel that there's not enough
activity on the mailing list to justify it. If you feel you've
got an issue that needs face-to-face discussion, 1) get a
mailing list discussion going, and 2) let
Hi, all:
We'd like to restart working group last call on the threat
analysis draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis/)
but I wanted to make sure that any serious concerns have been
addressed. In particular, it seems as if there may be some
unresolved questions
Hi, all:
Because we're in a less-active period in the working group's
work cycle and because of problems with an overscheduled
agenda in Berlin, we've decided not to have a formal session
at IETF 96. We will find some time for informal discussion,
for those who are interested. Gossip would be t
Hi, all:
As we approach the end of working group last call on 6962-bis,
it looks like we have an unresolved question about whether
name redaction should stay or go. I just went through the
mailing list archive and it looks like we have squishy
agreement that it should go (for example, Rob's comm
On 6/14/16 8:05 PM, Peter Bowen wrote:
To be clear, are you asking about 4.2 and 4.3 or just 4.2?
At the moment, just 4.2.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 6/15/16 12:33 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
Are you asking "Stay or Defer" or "Stay or Go" or "Stay or Defer or Go"?
I am asking "Stay or Go." Note that in the IETF someone can
introduce a new topic/draft/whatever, and that in some sense
no question is ever completely closed. But what I'm askin
On 6/16/16 10:24 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
A very good principle here is:
"No" is temporary; "Yes" is forever. If you're not sure about a new feature,
say no. You can change your mind later.
(https://github.com/docker/libcontainer/blob/master/PRINCIPLES.md#libco
ntainer-principles)
That's a nice p
On 6/16/16 4:54 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
Even if it's in the initial core spec, browsers still won't necessarily pick
it up. Especially if it's a scheme that's got some pretty serious concerns
against it. Instead, if it gets split out into a separate spec, the current
6962-bis (sans redaction) ca
On 6/17/16 10:01 AM, Sanjay Modi wrote:
Melinda, We want to keep reaction feature. We have talked extensively
with customers who have validated the requirement for privacy. Since
we rolled out redaction support several days ago, we have already had
hundreds of customers select this option for ove
Please note that we are not meeting in Berlin, and were
scheduled in error.
Thanks,
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On 7/16/16 12:24 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
I would like to discuss this, but that time is quite awkward! That
said, other times are not so great for me either - I'm travelling from
Tuesday. Perhaps I could organise something online in a few weeks time
when I'm back?
I think it would be helpful - I'
On 7/12/16 3:06 AM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
Those of you who care about CT gossip and are in Berlin for the IETF
should join us in an informal meeting sometime during the week for
discussions about what needs to be done.
We have a room for this. Monday night at 8pm, in the
Köpenick III room.
Me
This is just a reminder that we will be meeting tonight
for an informal discussion of the gossip draft. We have
reserved Köpenick III at 8pm.
Melinda
___
Trans mailing list
Trans@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Hi, all:
Please take a look at the draft and let us know if
your concerns have been addressed, as we'll be restarting
working group last call soon.
Thanks,
Melinda
On 7/27/16 5:59 AM, Eran Messeri wrote:
Updates in the draft 18:
- Fixing the specification of the REDACT function - it was inco
Hi, all:
Please take a look at the revised document and let us
know if your concerns have or have not been addressed,
and we'll be restarting working group last call shortly.
Thanks,
Melinda
On 7/26/16 9:45 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
DKG,
Thanks for the review and detailed comments.
In respon
Hi, all:
One of the substantive -bis document changes since starting the wglc
process is the addition of text treating the cached_info extension.
The proposed text is posted here:
https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/186/files
Please give it a read and post any comments yo
Hi, all:
Since there was no comment at all on the proposal to retain
name redaction, we appear to have complete agreement that
it should go. We'll go back into wglc when a new version
is submitted.
Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
Hi, all:
As you've probably seen, we've got agreement to strip
name redaction out of 6962-bis. However, since there's
interest in seeing work on it continue, we'd like to
propose splitting the existing text out into a separate
working group document. (Redaction is going to be
dropped from 6962-b
Please give this a serious, thoughtful review. We'd like to
get this document wrapped up and cannot do that until we've
got general agreement on the attack description.
Melinda
On 8/18/16 11:24 AM, David A. Cooper wrote:
> Section 3.4 of draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis is supposed to describe
Hi, all:
As you may have noticed, text related to name redaction
has been excised from 6962-bis. Because there's interest
in support for redaction that text has been spun off into
a separate document (draft-strad-trans-redaction-00,
"Certificate Transparency: Domain Label Redaction"), and
this is
Hi, all:
As you may have seen, a new version of 6962-bis has
been published, in response to comments during working
group last call. Eran's summary of changes was posted
yesterday, here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/Y3WtNOPT0eUrjWLQtbF4AFqJnBY
The URL for the document is:
https://
On 9/16/16 3:18 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> This is a fair point, and my position is that _if_ there is anyone who
> will actually use redaction (i.e. clients that will support it, we
> already know some CAs would like to be less transparent), then it
> should be a WG doc, but I am equally OK with it b
On 9/21/16 5:23 AM, Tarah Wheeler wrote:
> Hi, I'm Tarah, and I'm new at Symantec. I'll be reviewing and responding
> to the CT redaction thread, and actively involved in proposals.
A few months ago Symantec had stated that they'll be publishing
redacted labels - is that still the case?
Melinda
This is a reminder that the call for adoption closes tomorrow
(Friday) at 23:59 UTC. We are also looking for commitments to
1) co-author the draft, if adopted, and 2) implement and
deploy. It should be noted that so far we have no clear
commitments to either.
Melinda
signature.asc
Description
This is a reminder that working group last call for 6962-bis
closes tomorrow (Saturday) at 23:59 UTC. Please post comments,
etc. to the mailing list.
The changelog between the previous version and the current version
is at: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/current/msg02396.html
Melin
The 6962-bis draft has completed working group last call.
Next steps are the shepherd's write-up and sending it along
to the IESG for their review and for IETF last call.
Many thanks to working group participants for getting this
done, with special thanks to Ben, Eran, Rob, Adam, and
Emilia.
Meli
Hi, all:
There have been no responses to David Cooper's post regarding
the most recent revision of the threat analysis document
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/Y1_-4fnoWrZFJ0uuI12np59a3KY).
We really need to close this out, and that means we need input
from working group participants.
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
