Stephen Farrell and Steve Kent:

> On 01/10/14 15:30, Stephen Kent wrote:
>> How can we proceed on CT if we don't have a solid definition of the
>> problem it purports to address? Certainly detecting mis-issuance
>> has to be well-defined.
> 
> I think this is the crux of the matter.
> 
> Mis-issuance is not a feature but a bug. Attempting to
> describe all possible bugs of any sort is futile. If you
> argue that a CT RFC has to describe all possible bugs, then
> that amounts to arguing to not do CT. But the IETF has
> reached consensus to do CT so it seems that others do not
> agree with you that "detecting mis-issuance has to be
> well-defined" at least if that is meant to call for a
> complete enumeration of all the ways in which mis-issuance
> might occur. (And I don't get what else you might have
> meant, but please correct me if I'm misreading what
> you've written.)
> 
> Having some examples of mis-issuance described is quite
> reasonable. Asking that all forms of mis-issuance be
> documented is not reasonable.
> 
> Now as to CABF, while its very reasonable to think about
> their requirements, I don't think it'd be a good plan
> to hard-code a dependency on a version of those into a CT
> RFC. Their baseline reqs doc has changed 3 times this year
> already for example and 5 times in 2013 and I suspect will
> continue to evolve significantly.
> 
> But if you see a stable useful and quotable definition of
> mis-issuance in one of their documents, then sending a
> pointer to that text would be good. I don't know if there
> is such a piece of text though.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> PS: I'm not sure CABF would describe themselves as an SDO
> either, but that's a mere matter of terminology.

I think it is fairly easy to define mis-issuance, but I think it is nearly 
impossible to detect mis-issuance by an independent third party.

To my way of thinking, mis-issuance is a certificate that is issued in 
violation to some aspect of the certificate policy identified in the 
certificate itself.  I can think of very many policy violations that are not 
visible in the certificate itself.

Russ



_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

Reply via email to