On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Stephen Kent wrote: <chair hat on>
I can't agree with your conclusion if it's based on the analysis above, but I also can't predict how long such an attack might go undetected given the many variables involved.
So there seems to be no consensus about the colluding CA's scenario, and thus no consensus on the text that needs to go into the threat document. A few people think your text needs changes. It also seems to be the only issue left for WGLC. Do you have an idea on how to change the text to accomodate the feedback received on the list? Should we ask someone else to help you with this section? Perhaps dkg could help, since he originally came up with the attack? We really want to move this document into WGLC, so that the 6962bis document doesn't have to refer to a draft name, and we are very close to putting 6962 into WGLC. Paul _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
