Hi Phill, Not sure what Ben thinks of that but I'd rather just AD sponsor one draft for now. A split like that would definitely make sense for the standards-track work that's envisaged to follow though. Do you think that's really a must-have at this stage? I guess I don't, as of now.
Cheers, S. On 11/20/2012 01:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I think there should be two separate drafts. > > 1) Cover the technical spec describing how the notary log system works, the > data formats etc. > 2) Cover the use of the scheme in the context of PKIX. > > (1) is then reusable to other applications. > > Phill > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Group, >> >> Following the recent BoF and discussion with Stephen Farrell, the plan >> is to try to publish an experimental RFC for CT and, all going well, >> follow up later with a WG. >> >> In the experimental RFC we will cover the operation of the log, the >> log protocol and TLS client verification of CT. We will be >> specifically targetting the use of CT with PKI for HTTPS, and not >> other applications such as DNSSEC, self-signed certs, device certs, >> other TLS secured protocols, etc. Not that we exclude the possibility >> of using transparency logs for such things, of course, they just will >> not be covered by this initial RFC. >> >> The RFC will be broadly similar the existing I-D but will flesh out >> the protocols for interacting with the log, as far as they are >> currently defined. It will add RSA signatures for logs that would >> prefer to use it. >> >> It will not cover details of the audit process (that is, how clients >> verify that the timestamps they see really are included in the public >> log) as we think that will evolve quite rapidly for some time to come. >> >> The approximate timeline is that we hope to go to IETF last call >> around the end of the year. >> >> I intend to put out at least one more version for comment before that, >> though. >> >> As always, all comments are welcome. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ben. >> _______________________________________________ >> therightkey mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey > _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
