On May 9, 2014, at 10:47 PM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes and no. We produce documents. There's a working group > draft in development, and if there are problems with that > draft there's no time like the present for starting a discussion > and proposing text.
... OK, I think I did Step 1: "starting a discussion" about the problems in CT. Is Step 2: "proposing a modification to the RFC that fixes those problems"? What do I do if the problems are fundamental to the design of CT and the solution is to do something else? Is there an IETF process in place for "The work we're doing would harm the Internet so maybe we should stop?" > But we've got another mailing list for > higher-level discussions of how to deal with certificate > misissuance and it's a good place for CT discussions that don't > directly address the working group's products. Wasn't the point of CT precisely to "deal with certificate misissuance"? That is to be discussed in a list that is not specific to CT though? Apologies for all these questions. I'm just confused by the rules of this list. -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
