trans  

Messages by Date

• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Karen Seo
• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/05 [Trans] [trans] #61 (client-behavior): Precertificates are not proper nouns trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Ben Laurie
• 2015/03/04 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Ben Laurie
• 2015/03/04 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Karen Seo
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Melinda Shore
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Santosh Chokhani
• 2015/03/03 [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] Errata for RFC6962 - precertificates_chain Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Russ Housley
• 2015/03/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #48 (rfc6962-bis): Enforce the rules for Name-constrained Intermediates trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #47 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify how to deal with (minor) DER violations when manipulating a TBSCertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
• 2015/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Erwann Abalea
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #46 (rfc6962-bis): Provide explicit instructions for how log servers should handle already-logged certs trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #49 (rfc6962-bis): Explain why OCSP Stapling is acceptable but OCSP Fetching is not trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #47 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify how to deal with (minor) DER violations when manipulating a TBSCertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Melinda Shore
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Erwann Abalea
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Matt Palmer
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Matt Palmer
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] [trans] #28 (rfc6962-bis): Algorithm agility Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/26 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
• 2015/02/25 Re: [Trans] [trans] #36 (rfc6962-bis): error indications for log/client exchanges trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Karen Seo
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #31 (client-behavior): incremental deployment and client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #17 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice on CNs trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #56 (rfc6962-bis): "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #33 (rfc6962-bis): Cert chain length as log metadata trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Rob Stradling
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Ben Laurie
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Santosh Chokhani
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #32 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm needed for client checks of SCT trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #29 (rfc6962-bis): what does "immediately" mean? trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #28 (rfc6962-bis): Algorithm agility trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #27 (rfc6962-bis): Signature & hash alg specification trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #27 (rfc6962-bis): Signature & hash alg specification trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #24 (rfc6962-bis): Add a section about log metadata trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Karen Seo
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Karen Seo
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Karen Seo
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #25 (rfc6962-bis): Freezing a log's state trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #56 (rfc6962-bis): "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #17 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice on CNs trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/17 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Santosh Chokhani
• 2015/02/16 Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis Karen Seo
• 2015/02/16 Re: [Trans] [trans] #22 (rfc6962-bis): Explain why there are three delivery mechanisms for SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/10 Re: [Trans] [trans] #19 (rfc6962-bis): Rejig API for efficiency/correctness trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/10 [Trans] [trans] #59 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify STH versioning trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/09 Re: [Trans] [trans] #35 (rfc6962-bis): server SCT transmission restriction is misstated trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/09 Re: [Trans] [trans] #13 (rfc6962-bis): Deal with server farm skew trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/05 [Trans] [trans] #58 (rfc6962-bis): Maximise number of STH's published per time unit trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #40 (rfc6962-bis): Auditor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Gervase Markham
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Stephen Farrell
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Gervase Markham
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #56 (rfc6962-bis): "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Matt Palmer
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Watson Ladd
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Matt Palmer
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Peter Bowen
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Salz, Rich
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Scott R. Corzine
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/30 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Jeremy Rowley
• 2015/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2015/01/27 [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-05.txt internet-drafts
• 2015/01/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/27 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/27 [Trans] [trans] #57 (client-behavior): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/27 [Trans] [trans] #56 (rfc6962-bis): "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/22 [Trans] sorry about the formatting problem for the attack taxonomy outline Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/22 [Trans] updated attack analysis Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/21 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #31 (rfc6962-bis): incremental deployment and client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #21 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify signature checking purpose and mechanism trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #17 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice on CNs trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #17 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice on CNs trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/16 Re: [Trans] Addendum Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/14 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/14 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/13 Re: [Trans] Addendum Eran Messeri
• 2015/01/08 Re: [Trans] Addendum Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/07 [Trans] Addendum Melinda Shore
• 2015/01/07 [Trans] Recent issue tracker activity Melinda Shore
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #8 (rfc6962-bis): Need a way to obtain Merkle proofs for a batch for certificates around the SCT timestamp trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #43 (rfc6962-bis): key rollover trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #21 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify signature checking purpose and mechanism trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #21 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify signature checking purpose and mechanism trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #42 (rfc6962-bis): redacted cert dangers trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #37 (rfc6962-bis): client gossping trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #37 (rfc6962-bis): client gossping trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #17 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice on CNs trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #45 (rfc6962-bis): Incorporate RFC6962 errata trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #26 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates: Find alternative format to X.509 trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #31 (rfc6962-bis): incremental deployment and client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #42 (rfc6962-bis): redacted cert dangers trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #55 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations: Describe the implications of clients *not* doing certain optional checks trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #38 (client-behavior): Client Behavior: A separate document for specifying client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #15 (client-behavior): Client behaviour specification needed trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #40 (rfc6962-bis): Auditor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #37 (rfc6962-bis): client gossping trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #31 (rfc6962-bis): incremental deployment and client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #42 (rfc6962-bis): redacted cert dangers trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #42 (rfc6962-bis): redacted cert dangers trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 [Trans] [trans] #55 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations: Describe the implications of clients *not* doing certain optional checks trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #32 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm needed for client checks of SCT trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #15 (rfc6962-bis): Client behaviour specification needed trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #15 (rfc6962-bis): Client behaviour specification needed trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #38 (rfc6962-bis): Client Behavior: A separate document for specifying client behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #38 (rfc6962-bis): Client Behavior: A separate document for specifying client behavior (was: client behavior) trans issue tracker
• 2015/01/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2015/01/05 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Stephen Kent
• 2015/01/05 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Stephen Kent
• 2014/12/23 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Rob Stradling
• 2014/12/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction Stephen Kent
• 2014/12/17 [Trans] [trans] #54 (rfc6962-bis): Simplify name redaction trans issue tracker
• 2014/12/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #10 (rfc6962-bis): Permit Precertificate SCTs to be delivered via OCSP Stapling and the TLS Extension trans issue tracker
• 2014/12/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #44 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates SHOULD NOT be submitted to add-chain trans issue tracker
• 2014/12/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #26 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates: Find alternative format to X.509 trans issue tracker
• 2014/12/12 Re: [Trans] TLS server with SCTs in stapled OCSP responses ? Fabrice Gautier
• 2014/12/12 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Stephen Kent
• 2014/12/12 Re: [Trans] TLS server with SCTs in stapled OCSP responses ? Rob Stradling
• 2014/12/12 [Trans] TLS server with SCTs in stapled OCSP responses ? Fabrice Gautier
• 2014/12/11 Re: [Trans] SCT encoding Paul Wouters
• 2014/12/11 [Trans] SCT encoding Melinda Shore
• 2014/12/05 [Trans] IETF-91 draft minutes posted Paul Wouters
• 2014/11/25 Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework Stephen Kent
• 2014/11/24 Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework Stephen Kent
• 2014/11/24 Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework Phillip Hallam-Baker
• 2014/11/24 Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework Stephen Kent
• 2014/11/14 [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements trans issue tracker
• 2014/11/10 Re: [Trans] [trans] #24 (rfc6962-bis): Add a section about log metadata trans issue tracker
• 2014/11/10 Re: [Trans] [trans] #30 (rfc6962-bis): Publish MMD as log metadata trans issue tracker
• 2014/11/06 Re: [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Matt Palmer
• 2014/11/06 Re: [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Salz, Rich
• 2014/11/06 Re: [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Rob Stradling
• 2014/11/06 Re: [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Salz, Rich
• 2014/11/05 Re: [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Matt Palmer
• 2014/11/05 [Trans] Log servers by Feb 2015? Salz, Rich
• 2014/11/04 [Trans] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-trans-ct-dnssec-00.txt Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)
• 2014/11/04 [Trans] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-trans-ct-binary-codes-00.txt Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)
• 2014/10/30 Re: [Trans] Gossip drafts Linus Nordberg

• Earlier messages
• Later messages