Dear WG,
It has been a while since there has been activity in the trans working
group. We are going to pick up the last remaining issues over the few
days and see if we can wrap up the draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
document. If needed, I will act as a Document Editor to assist Rob
Stradling as Author. The other Authors have let us know that they
are no longer able to give this document their further attention.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/
The current status is that the document needs a revision after
some comments from the IESG. There are two DISCUSSes open which
we will try to summarize below. Hopefully, we can then start
a discussion where the WG provides new text, and then we will
get that out in an updated draft. Please remember it is important
to provide actual text, as the authors of the document are either
unavailable or severely limtied in time. So Rob or the chairs will
make updating the documents, but it is really up to the working
group to provide the text.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/
(Alexey Melnikov) Discuss
1) The "urn:ietf:params:trans:error:" needs to be registered at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xhtml#params-1
This requires new text in the IANA Considerations section.
2) Does "error" need a registry too ?
If so, this requires new text in the IANA Considerations section.
If not, there needs to be clarifying text to make that obvious.
(Benjamin Kaduk) Discuss
3) inconsistency / conflicts about the minimum array size of NodeHash
This requires modifing existing text.
4) Section 6 on OCSP contains language no longer applicable for the
latest TLS version 1.3.
This should be extended to cover 1.3 (or replaced to only cover 1.3
and no earlier versions??)
5) Need for "greater clarity on the (non-)usage of CT for TLS client
certificates"
Perhaps Benjamin can clarify this request with some more details?
There are still a number of Comments open, that ideally should also
be resolved. Once we have the DISCUSS items resolved, we will try
to send these Comment items to the lists for improvement/resolving,
or leaving them as is if we don't get feedback.
There isn't that much work left. Perhaps during IETF 110, we can get
some people together and work on these last few items? If interested,
let us know and we will try to find a time slot that works.
Paul & Melinda
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
