Hi, Rob et al.
Apologies for not chiming in sooner. Steve was/is on vacation last week
and this week. He'll be back next week.
Karen
On 9/11/15 5:22 PM, Rob Stradling wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
