Hello Melinda,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, if you've got a document that you're trying to progress, > now's a very good time to post to the mailing list with a > pointer to the document, a quick summary of what you're > trying to do, and what you think the open issues are or > areas that need discussion. > Unfortunately, I will not be present in Toronto. So I think there are the following problems that are the subject to solve for putting the CT into real world. 1. The behaviour of CT-supporting clients is underspecified. There are a lot of corner cases that should be a subject for clarification. I have sent the draft of my vision mixed with mostly Ben’s answers about the client behaviour to the Trans list some time ago. As there is no objections or agreements, I think that my suggestions should be either ignored and replaced by a specification written from scratch or adopted as a part of RFC after discussion. Also the absence of the gossip protocol description disturbs me too. 2. There is a lack of understanding of infrastructure which is necessary for the deployment of CT. If we get a hundred of logs, it is not better than a hundred of CAs we have now. If we found a misbehaviour of log or of a CA, it should be reported to - where? As far as I understand, this is out of scope for IETF, but who will establish the rules here? The adoption of the CT to operate together with DNSSec seems to be a separate topic and I think, there should be a separate document covering it. Thank you! -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
