trans  

Messages by Date

• 2016/03/08 Re: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA Considerations trans issue tracker
• 2016/03/08 Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
• 2016/03/07 [Trans] [trans] #155 (rfc6962-bis): Describe how to match SCTs to certificates trans issue tracker
• 2016/03/07 Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
• 2016/03/07 Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
• 2016/03/04 Re: [Trans] [draft2] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis (fwd) Stephen Kent
• 2016/03/02 Re: [Trans] [draft2] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis (fwd) Tom Ritter
• 2016/03/02 Re: [Trans] [draft2] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis (fwd) Salz, Rich
• 2016/03/02 [Trans] [draft2] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis (fwd) Paul Wouters
• 2016/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements Paul Wouters
• 2016/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements Stephen Kent
• 2016/03/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Stephen Kent
• 2016/03/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements Paul Wouters
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] Looking for feedback on open issue Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incomplete Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/29 Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/25 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2016/02/24 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Tom Ritter
• 2016/02/24 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Tom Ritter
• 2016/02/24 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/23 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2016/02/23 Re: [Trans] DNS for CT Paul Hoffman
• 2016/02/23 [Trans] DNS for CT Ben Laurie
• 2016/02/23 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/22 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Tom Ritter
• 2016/02/22 Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/20 [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise? Daniel Kahn Gillmor
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CA trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incomplete trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incomplete trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/18 Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/17 Re: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/16 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/16 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (rfc6962-bis): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/12 [Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CA trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/10 Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/10 Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/04 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/04 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #121 (rfc6962-bis): log metadata dissemination trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behavior trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] Oh... Russ Housley
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] Oh... Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] Oh... Stephen Farrell
• 2016/02/03 [Trans] Oh... Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #97 (rfc6962-bis): Allocate an OID for CMS precertificates Rob Stradling
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #118 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor function description problem trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/03 Re: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behavior trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 [Trans] Looking for feedback on open issue Melinda Shore
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #108 (rfc6962-bis): TLS session resumption: Server MUST NOT send SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #97 (rfc6962-bis): Allocate an OID for CMS precertificates trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #87 (rfc6962-bis): Add reference to threat analysis document trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/02 Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #97 (rfc6962-bis): Allocate an OID for CMS precertificates Rick Andrews
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #97 (rfc6962-bis): Allocate an OID for CMS precertificates Stephen Kent
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (rfc6962-bis): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis-04.txt internet-drafts
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 [Trans] [trans] #153 (rfc6962-bis): Finish documenting support for RFC6962 (v1) structures in TransInfo trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA Considerations trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #121 (rfc6962-bis): log metadata dissemination trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #121 (rfc6962-bis): log metadata dissemination trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #108 (rfc6962-bis): TLS session resumption: Server MUST NOT send SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (rfc6962-bis): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behavior trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (client-behavior): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (client-behavior): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #87 (rfc6962-bis): Add reference to threat analysis document trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #95 (rfc6962-bis): Should the response size to get-entries be a part of the log metadata? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behavior trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #132 (rfc6962-bis): unclear motivation for and handling of re-logging entries from a frozen log trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #95 (rfc6962-bis): Should the response size to get-entries be a part of the log metadata? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #118 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor function description problem trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #87 (rfc6962-bis): Add reference to threat analysis document trans issue tracker
• 2016/02/01 Re: [Trans] [trans] #97 (rfc6962-bis): Allocate an OID for CMS precertificates trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/29 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Melinda Shore
• 2016/01/29 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #108 (rfc6962-bis): TLS session resumption: Server MUST NOT send SCTs trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/28 [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-12.txt internet-drafts
• 2016/01/26 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/25 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Rob Stradling
• 2016/01/22 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/22 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Eran Messeri
• 2016/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor" trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #114 (rfc6962-bis): Name the OCSP Stapling TLS extension correctly trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #114 (rfc6962-bis): Name the OCSP Stapling TLS extension correctly trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/20 Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor" trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #71 (threat-analysis): Section 1 does not define mis-issuance trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #147 (rfc6962-bis): definition of mis-issuance, still! trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor" trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/19 Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor" trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/18 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Melinda Shore
• 2016/01/18 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Karen Seo
• 2016/01/15 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Stephen Farrell
• 2016/01/15 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Melinda Shore
• 2016/01/15 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Karen Seo
• 2016/01/14 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Rob Stradling
• 2016/01/13 Re: [Trans] Review of the architecture document (draft 1) Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] Review of the architecture document (draft 1) Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/12 [Trans] awaiting threat doc editorial comments Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #149 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/12 Re: [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/12 [Trans] trans - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 95 "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool"
• 2016/01/11 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Salz, Rich
• 2016/01/11 Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Melinda Shore
• 2016/01/11 [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Karen Seo
• 2016/01/11 Re: [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction Stephen Kent
• 2016/01/08 [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/08 [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/08 [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/08 [Trans] [trans] #149 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/08 [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction trans issue tracker
• 2016/01/06 Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Stephen Kent
• 2015/12/28 Re: [Trans] [trans] #136 (rfc6962-bis): inconsistent discussion of mis-issued certs and compliance Stephen Kent
• 2015/12/28 Re: [Trans] Review of draft 03 of the threat analysis document Stephen Kent
• 2015/12/24 Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Stephen Kent
• 2015/12/23 Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
• 2015/12/23 Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Melinda Shore
• 2015/12/23 Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Salz, Rich
• 2015/12/22 [Trans] background on updated tickets Stephen Kent
• 2015/12/22 Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
• 2015/12/22 Re: [Trans] binary transparency Paul Wouters
• 2015/12/22 Re: [Trans] [trans] #39 (client-behavior): Monitor behavior trans issue tracker
• 2015/12/22 Re: [Trans] binary transparency Stephen Farrell
• 2015/12/22 [Trans] [trans] #147 (rfc6962-bis): definition of mis-issuance, still! trans issue tracker
• 2015/12/22 Re: [Trans] binary transparency Paul Wouters
• 2015/12/22 [Trans] binary transparency Stephen Farrell

• Earlier messages
• Later messages