I was quite surprised to see this come through given that we've said repeatedly that the threat document isn't going to block the -bis document moving forward. A better approach might be to propose text for the -bis draft.
Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Trans] [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:40:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: [email protected] Resent-To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:40:36 -0000 From: trans issue tracker <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected] #116: ned definition for mis-issuance the document does not include a definition for misissuance [sic], even though this is the central motivation of CT. The doc should use the definition from the threat/attacks model, cite that document, and change the spelling to “mis-issuance” “mis-issue”, “mis-issued”, etc.) -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/116> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
