On 28/09/15 20:28, Stephen Kent wrote: > 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.
Hi Steve. AIUI, there isn't yet a -00 draft of your arch doc, and this WG has not yet been asked to consider adopting it. Meanwhile, there is a desire to complete 6962-bis ASAP. >> 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? Yes. I also consider the CT-specific parts of network interactions between TLS clients and TLS servers to be part of "the protocol". >> 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. Are there any specific "CA requirements" currently in 6962-bis that you think should be removed from 6962-bis? I can't find any that would fall outside of "how to interact with the log". > 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. When do you expect to have a -00 draft of your arch doc ready? -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
