I don't think there's weak interest in redaction. I think most people are stumped on how to move forward. Given the discussions on the Google CT policy list and CAB Form (and the current Symantec practice of redacting SAN information), it's a huge topic. The question is how do we progress towards consensus when there are such polar view points.
-----Original Message----- From: Trans [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:45 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Paul Wouters <[email protected]> Subject: [Trans] Draft agenda Hi, all: This is a first poke at an agenda, with some open questions (for example, has there been any progress on a log monitoring API?). Please flag any problems, raise any questions, or suggest any additions. Thanks, Melinda ======== trans session, ietf 98 13:00-14:30 Tuesday March 28, 2017 @ Room Studio 4 Agenda ------ administrivia (~5 minutes) blue sheets, minute taker, jabber scribe, agenda-bashing Note Well status update . charter unchanged . issue tracker (17 open tickets) . 6962-bis: WGLC completed - significant issue raised by Mozilla, nearing resolution . Redaction: Weak interest but we need a way forward . threat-analysis: stuck - additional author? . ct-gossip: through wglc . ct-dnssec: no update . ct-binaries: new drafts, apparently there's work being done on this problem outside the IETF 6962bis follow-up, obtaining proofs (Eran/Richard) Name redaction/privacy . use of VRFs for name redaction (Eran) . a privacy-preserving mechanism for obtaining and and reporting log misbehavior (Saba) binaries logging . draft-zhang-trans-ct-binary-codes-04 (Frank) . current work on this problem outside of the IETF (DKG) new work . Log Monitoring API Any other business?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
