Rob,
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.
fair observation, but you reviewed the section I wrote for the Monitor
and you said that it looked good, except for two specific sentences
(one of which was derived from 6962-bis!).
Meanwhile, there is a desire to complete 6962-bis ASAP.
publication of 6962-bis per se ought not be the goal. publication of
documents
that clearly describe the CT system ought to be the goal of this WG, IMHO.
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".
on this point we may disagree. there are several protocols (not one)
that make up the
CT system: the comms used between the log and each of its clients,
comms between a TLS client and a server (which vary depending depending
on how SCTs are delivered), comms between a web site and a thrid-party
Monitor,
and several protocols used to support the Auditor function (gossiping).
So, when you to "the protocol" it's hard for some of us to know which ones
you have in mind. if it's all of them, then I definitely disagree that
they all
belong in 6962-bis.
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".
right now, no.
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?
by the end of this week.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
