On 29/09/15 16:54, Stephen Kent wrote: <snip> >> 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
I did. > (one of which was derived from 6962-bis!). Which is still a work in progress. ;-) >> 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. Well, clearly we have different opinions on what the deliverables of this WG should be, and the scope of each deliverable. Chairs: Please could you settle this one way or another? >>>> 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. 6962-bis has never tried to cover gossip. Ripping out the TLS client/server comms from 6962-bis in the hope that somebody will specify this in some future doc doesn't seem like a good idea to me. >>> 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. -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online Office Tel: +44.(0)1274.730505 Office Fax: +44.(0)1274.730909 www.comodo.com COMODO CA Limited, Registered in England No. 04058690 Registered Office: 3rd Floor, 26 Office Village, Exchange Quay, Trafford Road, Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail containing this attachment. Replies to this email may be monitored by COMODO for operational or business reasons. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
