On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:59 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 4) Section 6 on OCSP contains language no longer applicable for the 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.
I've been a lurker, but point me at the repo and I can give it a good try with some text. > > Paul & 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
