Go ahead, I didn’t hear any objection. Paul
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 10, 2019, at 18:00, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul, > > Still awaiting your feedback on this one. > > From: Trans <[email protected]> on behalf of Rob Stradling > <[email protected]> > Sent: 02 October 2019 19:44 > To: Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > Cc: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>; Eran Messeri <[email protected]>; Trans > <[email protected]>; Andrew Ayer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for > draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33 > > Paul, > > Does https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/314 address > your concern? > > May I go ahead and merge this PR? > > (It's still not clear to me what the 6962-bis authors can or can't do at this > point in the editing cycle). > > From: Eran Messeri <[email protected]> > Sent: 25 September 2019 17:11 > To: Rob Stradling <[email protected]> > Cc: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>; Andrew Ayer <[email protected]>; Trans > <[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for > draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33 > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 12:16 PM Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/09/2019 18:38, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Andrew Ayer wrote: > > > >>> While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few > >>> more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go > >>> ahead and make this change. > >> > >> I'm also not sure what "this change" would be, but I agree with the > >> other comments here that CT shouldn't provide a mechanism for logs to > >> change URL. > > > > I meant the clarification text of Base URL change (verus a potential > > other consensus of text that would allow updating the base url) > > > > I'm not sure what the policy is for declaring a registry append only. > > Maybe leave a comment in for IANA whether or not that needs text? > > In -33, section 10.6.1 says: > "Each application for the allocation of a Log ID MUST be accompanied > by: > - the Log's Base URL (see Section 4.1). > - a Contact (including contact information), from whom further > information can be obtained. > - an Owner (including contact information), who is authorized to > change this Log ID allocation." > > I think we should fold "Owner" and "Contact" into just one field named > "Log Operator", and clarify that the only part of a Log ID Registry > entry that can be updated is the log operator's contact information. > > Also, given that log operators are permitted to allocate Log IDs from > other OID arcs (see section 4.4), ISTM that we also need to update > section 4.1 to say that a log's Base URL is immutable. > > Furthermore, ISTM that it would help to be explicit about the > immutability of each and every log parameter. > > Here's a PR that attempts to resolve all of the above: > https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/314 > I agree with Rob and Ryan's stance - as demonstrated with 6962 deployment, > client agility would address the issue of logs wanting to change their URLs > (and I do not recall an occasion where having the ability to change just the > log URL would have been helpful). > > > > > Or alternatively, in the text for the Expert Review, mention the > > registry is strictly append-only ? > > There is no Expert Review text relating to the Log ID Registry. > > -- > Rob Stradling > Senior Research & Development Scientist > Sectigo Limited > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
