On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:40:59PM -0700, Greg wrote: > On Sep 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Matt Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:58:56AM -0700, Tao Effect wrote: > >> "No barrier"? Subjects (domain owners) would need to monitor *all* the > >> logs out there. > >> > >> There will be like 1000+ logs out there. > > > > "Citation needed", as the Wikipedeans say. I'm not sure how you could > > possibly come to that conclusion. > > I am citing your own documentation:
I had nothing to do with the content on that webpage. Not everyone interested in CT works for Google, y'know. > "we think “every major CA” is within limits of feasibility" > > http://www.certificate-transparency.org/faq > And using Jacob's numbers from here: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/therightkey/current/msg00745.html The word "major" does not appear anywhere in the content of that resource. Thus, you're comparing apples with oranges -- the Google CT FAQ suggests that "every major CA" may run a log, while your resource says there may be between "more than 1200" and 1832 CA certificates (total, comprising both roots and intermediates) in active existence, but with no indication of how many of those may be considered "major". - Matt -- The New York Times: the paper that asks for more verification from its readers than its writers. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
