I was not at the interim, so this email comes without context of that discussion. Apologies if this was exactly what the chairs didn't want...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Christopher Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > - October 8 through October 19: Discuss the problem statement. In > particular, if anyone feels the problem statement captured in the > draft introduction [2,3] or in the above "facts" is incorrect, > imprecise, or misleading, please say so, and say why (in a succinct > fashion). I agree with the facts presented in the email. I find the problem statement in Section 2 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-07 to be imprecise. Whether or not something is imprecise is often only discoverable in hindsight, given disagreements about it. That seems to be the case here. Specifically, it does not state if the intent of the draft is to enable a *server* to limit authentication of itself to this mechanism. It only talks about enabling a client to authenticate the server. Basically the draft doesn't say if it's supposed to specify a pinning mechanism or not. Since it omits it, my assumption would be that it _would_ not and _should_ not specify a pinning mechanism. (If it did specify a pinning mechanism, then the draft is solving a problem not explained in the introduction.) -tom _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
