Eran,
I would like to see auditing described as a separate function,
independent of a Monitor.
My recollection (after being on vacation for 3 weeks) was that this
distinction was
OK in the intro, then muddled in the discussion of the Monitor, which
was described in
a way that made it an auditor. I provided text to try to fix this. I'm
not sure if you
are saying that the text I provided does not address the problem, or
that you and your
co-authors have rejected that text and are unable to generate
alternative text to address
the concern I cited.
Steve
Risking resurrection of an old thread, I'll point out that when
addressing ticket 141
<https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/117/files>
more text was added about auditing, which should clarify what a
monitor can do if it's interested in auditing.
Ticket 118 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/118> seems
to repeat the concern originally raised in ticket 93, but we couldn't
come up with text that would be meaningful and address the concern
raised in that ticket.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Paul,
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Stephen Kent wrote:
I also agree that the architecture document provides a
more in-depth
description of the Monitor function, but it is also at
odds with the
description in the -11 draft. So, I disagree with the
proposal to
leave the current text in place.
Then please provide improved text (not scaffolding) for the
bis document.
Paul
I have done so, via the issue tracker.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
