Hi, Rob,
[The rest of 3.2 defines both what the log should accept for a
pre-certificate and what the CA must do. So it should remain here
but also be duplicated in a requirements document for CAs. ]/**
I don't see how duplicating text in multiple documents helps the goal
of "simplifying".
This is the one place where I felt the text pertained to both the log
and the CA. How about if we put the text in the CA document and put a
pointer in 6962-bis to the CA document?
BTW, keeping "the rest of 3.2" would mean keeping section 3.2's
reference to section 4.2, but...
Good point. The above would address this.
For -10 of 6962-bis, I spent many hours moving text around so that
each component of the CT system has its own section in that document,
rather than all of the requirements for all of the components being
mixed up. I think that had the effect of "simplifying 6962-bis", and I
don't think that any further "simplifying" work is necessary.
I appreciate the effort you've made to separate the text by component.
It does clarify the specification and makes it easier to comprehend.
It also makes splitting out the text for each component pretty
straightforward.
IMHO, the idea of splitting 6962-bis into a separate doc for each
component just seems like unnecessary editorial work.
There are a number of issues (for the non-log components) that WG
members have asked be addressed that the existing 6962-bis text doesn't
cover. To address these issues we could add text to 6962-bis; but that
would make a 40+ page document much longer and add to the time it's
going to take to get 6962-bis out the door. The individual IDs submitted
so far for the non-log components (CA/Subject , Browser ,
Monitors/Auditors) attempt to cover these issues and average about 10
pages each, for a total of 30 pages, so far, that would need to be added
to 6962-bis (assuming that the WG approved the text or something similar.)
Karen
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
