trans  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: [Trans] [trans] #75 (rfc6962-bis): run on sentence in section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #75 (rfc6962-bis): run on sentence in section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #75 (rfc6962-bis): run on sentence in section 3 trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #74 (client-behavior): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #74 (rfc6962-bis): normative statement of TLS client behavior in Section 3 trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #73 (client-behavior): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log certvalidation is ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log certvalidation is ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re logcertvalidation is ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re logcertvalidation is ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re logcertvalidationis ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re logcertvalidationis ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text relogcertvalidationis ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text relogcertvalidationis ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 textrelogcertvalidationis ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous Ben Laurie
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous Karen Seo
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log certvalidation is ambiguous Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #72 (client-behavior): Section 2.1.4 cites specific algorithms trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #72 (rfc6962-bis): Section 2.1.4 cites specific algorithms trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #72 (rfc6962-bis): Section 2.1.4 cites specific algorithms trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #72 (rfc6962-bis): Section 2.1.4 cites specific algorithms trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #71 (client-behavior): Section 1 does not define mis-issuance trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #71 (rfc6962-bis): Section 1 does not define mis-issuance trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #71 (threat-analysis): Section 1 does not define mis-issuance trans issue tracker
• [Trans] Clarification on Precertificate Signing Certificates Linus Nordberg
• Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Manger, James
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Massimiliano Pala
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Massimiliano Pala
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Salz, Rich
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Warren Kumari
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Salz, Rich
  • [Trans] Use of private OIDs in WG document Massimiliano Pala
  • Re: [Trans] Use of private OIDs in WG document Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] Use of private OIDs in WG document Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] Use of private OIDs in WG document Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax Leif Johansson
  • [Trans] Use of Private OIDs in WG document (Re: [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax) Massimiliano Pala
  • Re: [Trans] Use of Private OIDs in WG document (Re: [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax) Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Use of Private OIDs in WG document (Re: [pkix] a question of cert (and OCSP) extension syntax) Nico Williams
• [Trans] Follow-up on closing the SCT encoding issue Melinda Shore
• [Trans] Agenda uploaded Melinda Shore
  • [Trans] One, not three gossip drafts (was: Agenda uploaded) Linus Nordberg
  • Re: [Trans] One, not three gossip drafts Melinda Shore
  • [Trans] Agenda uploaded Melinda Shore
• [Trans] Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Melinda Shore
  • [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Erwann Abalea
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Nico Williams
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Paul Wouters
  • Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion Nico Williams
• [Trans] draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct-01 Linus Nordberg
  • Re: [Trans] draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct-01 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
  • Re: [Trans] draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct-01 Melinda Shore
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #14 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify ASN.1 encoding trans issue tracker
• [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-07.txt internet-drafts
• [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-06.txt internet-drafts
• [Trans] [trans] #68 (client-behavior): specification of sha-256 for the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #68 (rfc6962-bis): specification of sha-256 for the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #68 (rfc6962-bis): specification of sha-256 for the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #68 (rfc6962-bis): specification of sha-256 for the SCT trans issue tracker
• [Trans] comments on -05 (Sections 3.5 + 3.6) Stephen Kent
• [Trans] [trans] #70 (client-behavior): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): SCT spec needs to define top-level extension syntax (was: STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax) trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): SCT spec needs to define top-level extension syntax trans issue tracker
• [Trans] comments on -05 (Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.4.1) Stephen Kent
• [Trans] comments on -05 (Section 3.1) Stephen Kent
• [Trans] [trans] #69 (client-behavior): old data name (sha256_root_hash) in 3.6 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #69 (rfc6962-bis): old data name (sha256_root_hash) in 3.6 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #69 (rfc6962-bis): old data name (sha256_root_hash) in 3.6 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #69 (rfc6962-bis): old data name (sha256_root_hash) in 3.6 trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #66 (client-behavior): revise the description of what logs MAY do re cert syntax checking trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #67 (rfc6962-bis): no specification of how a log advertises the max cert chain length it will accept trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #67 (rfc6962-bis): no specification of how a log advertises the max cert chain length it will accept trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #67 (rfc6962-bis): no specification of how a log advertises the max cert chain length it will accept trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #65 (client-behavior): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 Salz, Rich
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3 trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #63 (client-behavior): remove all normative references to client behavior trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #63 (rfc6962-bis): remove all normative references to client behavior trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #64 (client-behavior): remove specification of signature and hash lags from section 2 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #64 (rfc6962-bis): remove specification of signature and hash lags from section 2 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #64 (rfc6962-bis): remove specification of signature and hash lags from section 2 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #64 (rfc6962-bis): remove specification of signature and hash lags from section 2 trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #62 (rfc6962-bis): change title for section 1 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #62 (rfc6962-bis): change title for section 1 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #62 (rfc6962-bis): change title for section 1 trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #8 (client-privacy): Need a way to obtain Merkle proofs for a batch for certificates around the SCT timestamp trans issue tracker
• [Trans] comments on -05 (Abstract, Section 1 and Section 2) Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] comments on -05 (Abstract, Section 1 and Section 2) Ben Laurie
  • Re: [Trans] comments on -05 (Abstract, Section 1 and Section 2) Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] comments on -05 (Abstract, Section 1 and Section 2) Ben Laurie
• [Trans] comments on -05 (Section 3) Stephen Kent
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #9 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations for number and variety of SCTs trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #61 (client-behavior): Precertificates are not proper nouns trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #61 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates are not proper nouns trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #61 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates are not proper nouns trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #61 (rfc6962-bis): Precertificates are not proper nouns trans issue tracker
• [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Ben Laurie
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Ben Laurie
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] changes to attack analysis Stephen Kent
• Re: [Trans] Errata for RFC6962 - precertificates_chain Stephen Kent
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #48 (rfc6962-bis): Enforce the rules for Name-constrained Intermediates trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #50 (client-behavior): Ordering of revocation checking and SCT processing by TLS Clients trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #46 (rfc6962-bis): Provide explicit instructions for how log servers should handle already-logged certs trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #49 (rfc6962-bis): Explain why OCSP Stapling is acceptable but OCSP Fetching is not trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #4 (rfc6962-bis): Should we sign TBS for Certificates? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #47 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify how to deal with (minor) DER violations when manipulating a TBSCertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #47 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify how to deal with (minor) DER violations when manipulating a TBSCertificate trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #36 (rfc6962-bis): error indications for log/client exchanges trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Erwann Abalea
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Erwann Abalea
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Ben Laurie
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Paul Wouters
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Russ Housley
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #34 (rfc6962-bis): use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Stephen Kent
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #31 (client-behavior): incremental deployment and client behavior trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #33 (rfc6962-bis): Cert chain length as log metadata trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #29 (rfc6962-bis): what does "immediately" mean? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #28 (rfc6962-bis): Algorithm agility trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #28 (rfc6962-bis): Algorithm agility Stephen Kent
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #27 (rfc6962-bis): Signature & hash alg specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #27 (rfc6962-bis): Signature & hash alg specification trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #25 (rfc6962-bis): Freezing a log's state trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #60 (rfc6962-bis): The number of redacted labels should be revealed in the Precertificate trans issue tracker

• Earlier messages
• Later messages