On 18 August 2014 13:46, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > > >> On 18 August 2014 12:55, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ben, >>> >>> Thanks for the analysis you performed to start the discussion on >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct-policy/_p8zRz5Em3s. >>> >>> However, I believe that this discussion should move to the >>> TRANS list, since it addresses a topic that is squarely within >>> the scope of the CT standard, right? >>> >>> Do you disagree? >> >> I am not against there being a discussion in TRANS, but I think there >> are two interlinked issues: >> >> 1. What signals CT provides for what kinds of certs. >> >> 2. What Chrome does in response to those signals. >> >> Each has its own appropriate venue. > > I agree that these are separate topics. But the overall question of whether > the proposal for redacted certs, as part of 6962-bis, is "safe" for both > DV and EV certs, is appropriate for this list. (It's the subject of an > issue tracker entry that I submitted.)
Sure, that makes sense to me. > The topic of how a CT-compliant TLS client deals with a redacted cert, of > any type, > is within scope for TRANS. > > What Chrome does is not a subject for TRANS, since you have already stated > that Chrome will do whatever Google decides, irrespective of any TRANS RFCs > :-). Google is obviously not unique in this regard - it's true of all software, right? >> I am also mildly confused about how an RFC interacts with standards >> that are not controlled by the IETF (i.e. the Base Requirements and >> the Extended Validation requirements). > > > Well, RFC 6125 is an example of a standards track RFC that talks about EV > certs in the TLS context, so there is a precedent. As far as I can see only to say its out of scope. > > Steve _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
