On 10/09/15 20:07, Stephen Kent wrote: > Rob, Hi Steve.
> I thought the intent, going forward was to make 6962-bis a description > of log operation. Log operation only? If that's the current intent, I must have missed a discussion/decision somewhere. I thought the intent was for 6962-bis to describe "the protocol" as well as log operation. Perhaps the chairs could clarify exactly which documents this WG is intending to produce, and what the scope of each is? > if so, then this new feature does not belong in that doc. > It belongs in a spec for Subjects (aka web site operators), or in the > arch doc. Documentation of this "new feature" will be relevant to CAs (because it will describe what they should put in certificates and OCSP responses) as well as Subjects (because it will describe what they should put in the CT TLS extension). > Steve >> On 08/09/15 21:54, Adam Eijdenberg wrote: >> <snip> >>> We'd also be quite open to exploring other ideas, though the above is >>> what we're currently planning/started building out (and won't require >>> additional work by log operators). >> Note [1] that for 6962-bis we're planning to make it possible for >> servers/certs to optionally embed/send inclusion proofs instead of SCTs. >> >> When this option is used, the question of how to fetch inclusion proofs >> in a privacy preserving manner doesn't even need to be asked. :-) >> >> >> [1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/104 -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
