Paul,
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.
A "few people" also think there need to be changes to 6269-bis :-).
It also seems
to be the only issue left for WGLC.
I also posted proposed text (3.4) to address the concerns raised by
Bryan Ford.
I've received no feedback on that text yet.
Do you have an idea on how to change the text to accomodate the feedback
received on the list?
I will make changes to accommodate feedback that is accurate and rational.
I believe I have been making changes much faster than the authors of
6269-bis,
over the past 18-24 months.
Should we ask someone else to help you with
this section? Perhaps dkg could help, since he originally came up with
the attack?
I welcome contributions from DKG.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
