Rob,
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 that was the gist of a discussion at the meeting in Prague.
Ben and I agreed (surprise) that there should be a separate architecture
doc,
which I am now writing. I said that I thought that 6962-bis should be a
description
of log operation, which is what most of the text addresses now.
I thought the intent was for 6962-bis to describe "the protocol" as well
as log operation.
certainly 6962-bis should describe how all log clients interact with it.
is that the "protocol" to which you allude above?
Perhaps the chairs could clarify exactly which documents this WG is
intending to produce, and what the scope of each is?
good idea.
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).
It is relevant to CAs, but I believe that CA requirements, other than how
to interact with the log, should not be part of 6962-bis. I have been
including
CA, Monitor, Auditor and TLS client requirements in the arch doc, since
we have
no commitments to write individual docs for these. I have grabbed text from
6962-bis, where appropriate, for these sections. I would be happy to see
others
volunteer to write requirements docs for these other elements of the CT
system,
but until then I am gathering them into the arch doc.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
