Rob et al.,
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.
Could you clarify for me what you mean by "protocol?" (I'm not
objecting, just asking for specifics.). There were previous discussions
of whether to include TLS-related options/changes, whose resolution was
left unclear (to me).
Perhaps the chairs could clarify exactly which documents this WG is
intending to produce, and what the scope of each is?
Not meaning to usurp chair prerogatives and having not been able to
attend the recent IETF (except remotely) and therefore having possibly
missed something....
Recalling past messages, I believe there have been observations about
(and no objection to) the need for further details/clarification on the
following topics and to the general idea of fleshing these out in
separate documents. I'm pretty sure various people volunteered to write
at least 2 of them. (1) a mechanism for ensuring correct behavior of
the logs, i.e., GOSSIP, (2) auditor behavior and (3) monitor behavior.
Discussions about client "behavior" have been more controversial but in
any case, my 2 cents is that it would be simpler to separate the
description of the client's behavior from 6962-bis and put it in its own
document. It would be easier for implementers than hunting through 6962
and would let 6962-bis progress while we hash out details re: client
operations such as how does the cliemnt signal that it accepts SCTs,
privacy concerns/solutions, what is the "somehow" whereby clients
exchange STHs, how do clients obtain the necessary metadata, etc.
Thank you,
Karen
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
