trans  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] proposed CA/Subject changes Melinda Shore
• [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #152 (client-behavior): Architecture document: CT-aware TLS clients may require SCTs for all certs trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #151 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Only the leaf cert + timestamp are in the SCT trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #150 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Indicate missing SCT is equivalent to invalid one trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #149 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #149 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #148 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Spelling/improvements to Introduction trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] Review of draft 03 of the threat analysis document Stephen Kent
• [Trans] background on updated tickets Stephen Kent
• [Trans] [trans] #147 (rfc6962-bis): definition of mis-issuance, still! trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #147 (rfc6962-bis): definition of mis-issuance, still! trans issue tracker
• [Trans] binary transparency Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] binary transparency Paul Wouters
  • Re: [Trans] binary transparency Stephen Farrell
  • Re: [Trans] binary transparency Paul Wouters
• [Trans] Question about threat analysis reviews Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Question about threat analysis reviews Salz, Rich
• [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Karen Seo
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Karen Seo
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Salz, Rich
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Threat analysis reviews Stephen Kent
• [Trans] Certificate Transparency Mirrors (experimental) Adam Eijdenberg
  • Re: [Trans] Certificate Transparency Mirrors (experimental) Florian M.
  • Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Mirrors (experimental) Florian MAURY
  • Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Mirrors (experimental) Rob Stradling
• [Trans] [trans] #146 (gossip): SCT Feedback doesn't account for privacy-sensitive EE certs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #146 (gossip): SCT Feedback doesn't account for privacy-sensitive EE certs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #146 (gossip): SCT Feedback doesn't account for privacy-sensitive EE certs trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers Robin Wilton
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #145 (rfc6962-bis): Section 9.2 (TLS clients) needs more guidance for browsers trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #144 (rfc6962-bis): Need to specify how the CA requirements in 12.3 are to be met trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #142 (rfc6962-bis): Specify what TLS clients should send in the extension_data of the transparency_info TLS extension trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Rob Stradling
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate? trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description Karen Seo
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #141 (rfc6962-bis): expanding audit description trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #140 (rfc6962-bis): move section 8 to CA specification trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #138 (rfc6962-bis): use of term before defining it trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted" trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted" trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #135 (rfc6962-bis): Subjects (vs. Monitors) observing logs? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #135 (rfc6962-bis): Subjects (vs. Monitors) observing logs? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return" trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return" trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return" trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return" trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return" trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #137 (rfc6962-bis): Section 13, an unlucky number? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #137 (rfc6962-bis): Section 13, an unlucky number? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #137 (rfc6962-bis): Section 13, an unlucky number? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #137 (rfc6962-bis): Section 13, an unlucky number? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #95 (rfc6962-bis): Should the response size to get-entries be a part of the log metadata? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #95 (rfc6962-bis): Should the response size to get-entries be a part of the log metadata? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #95 (rfc6962-bis): Should the response size to get-entries be a part of the log metadata? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this? trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Paul Wouters
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 Eran Messeri
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4 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] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate trans issue tracker
• Re: [Trans] [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance trans issue tracker
• [Trans] new I-Ds Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] new I-Ds Dmitry Belyavsky
  • Re: [Trans] new I-Ds David Mandelberg
  • Re: [Trans] new I-Ds Dmitry Belyavsky
• [Trans] Log id turning into an OID Linus Nordberg
• [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-11.txt internet-drafts
• [Trans] [trans] #137 (rfc6962-bis): Section 13, an unlucky number? trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #136 (rfc6962-bis): inconsistent discussion of mis-issued certs and compliance trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #136 (rfc6962-bis): inconsistent discussion of mis-issued certs and compliance trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #136 (rfc6962-bis): inconsistent discussion of mis-issued certs and compliance Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #136 (rfc6962-bis): inconsistent discussion of mis-issued certs and compliance trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #135 (rfc6962-bis): Subjects (vs. Monitors) observing logs? trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #134 (rfc6962-bis): client use of logs to detect mis-issued certs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #134 (rfc6962-bis): client use of logs to detect mis-issued certs trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #133 (rfc6962-bis): incomplete Misbehaving Logs section trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #132 (rfc6962-bis): unclear motivation for and handling of re-logging entries from a frozen log trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #132 (rfc6962-bis): unclear motivation for and handling of re-logging entries from a frozen log trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #132 (rfc6962-bis): unclear motivation for and handling of re-logging entries from a frozen log trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #132 (rfc6962-bis): unclear motivation for and handling of re-logging entries from a frozen log trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #131 (rfc6962-bis): missing guidance for TLS servers to select logs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #131 (rfc6962-bis): missing guidance for TLS servers to select logs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #131 (rfc6962-bis): missing guidance for TLS servers to select logs trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #131 (rfc6962-bis): missing guidance for TLS servers to select logs trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • [Trans] Fwd: [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination Melinda Shore
  • Re: [Trans] Fwd: [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination Tom Ritter
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #130 (gossip): Support Delegation of SCT Feedback/STH Pollination Ben Laurie
• [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #129 (rfc6962-bis): how do submitters determine what a log will accept? trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert Stephen Kent
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #127 (rfc6962-bis): confusing case is allowed: submission of pre-cert without embedding SCT in issued cert trans issue tracker
• [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker
  • Re: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT trans issue tracker

• Earlier messages
• Later messages