Redaction (4.2) should stay. It provides a necessary mechanism for domain
owners to protect the privacy and security of their domains when
participating
in certificate transparency. With redaction, domain owners are able to get
the full benefits of monitoring certificates issued to their domains and
also get the privacy protection they need. We have talked extensively with
customers
who have validated the requirement for privacy. Since we rolled out
redaction
support several days ago, we have already had hundreds of customers select
this option for over
1500 certificates.

Other solution paths, while fail to support all of the key use cases like
name
redaction can:

Wildcards ­ this could work for some organizations, however it is common
for large enterprises to have explicit IT
policies prohibiting the use of wildcard certificates.

Name Constrained Intermediate ­ this has proven to be unmanageable as it
is doesn¹t enable additional domains to be
added later, a key use case for most customers.

Private CA ­ this too can work but is relevant only for non-browser use
cases. Customers consistently choose publicly trusted certificates for
internal sites for root ubiquity and manageability.

Thanks,


Sanjay

On 6/14/16, 9:03 PM, "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi, all:
>
>As we approach the end of working group last call on 6962-bis,
>it looks like we have an unresolved question about whether
>name redaction should stay or go.  I just went through the
>mailing list archive and it looks like we have squishy
>agreement that it should go (for example, Rob's comment:
>"Regarding fixing it: I'd rather nuke the redaction
>option than add further complexity.").  So, if anybody has
>particularly strong feelings about this, or disagrees
>about removing name redaction, please weigh in.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Melinda
>
>_______________________________________________
>Trans mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

Reply via email to