Hi, I'm now specifically reviewing the STS reporting draft. We currently have a discussion on file formats within STLE/LE/Certbot. I think CBOR would be a nice format if things get bigger. I'm aware you just switched to JSON and in your specific use-case JSON will probably suffice. The future-work/forensic-reporting mode is something I'd be specifically interested in in that regard. Once these reports get big, JSON might be suboptimal.
What's the WGs opinion on that? Aaron On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Aaron Zauner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 Apr 2016, at 20:37, Leif Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2016-04-25 15:29, Brotman, Alexander wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> We've incorporated much of the feedback we've received from the > community, and would like to present updated drafts. > >> > >> * One of the most evident changes is that we've split the draft into > two separate documents; one for the STS policy, and one for the TLS > reporting. These are meant to replace the original SMTP STS draft ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts-00). > >> * We've altered the name a bit from "SMTP STS" to "MTA STS" to be more > in line with DEEP, and have also added elements for the DEEP registry. > >> * After some deliberation amongst the authors, we've also decided to > remove the DNSSEC-related options for the STS policy, which should simplify > work for those wishing to deploy STS validation. > >> * Within the TLS reporting, we've explicitly mentioned several failure > modes, including those specifically relating to DANE and MTA STS. > >> * We've also altered the report syntax to use JSON instead of XML. > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > In BA there was consensus (pretty strong at that) to adopt this draft as > > a WG document. > > > > This starts an adoption call for adoption as a WG document. Please > > indicate your support or objection (with motivation) for WG adoption > > no later than EOB (any TZ) May 1st > > I support adoption of these drafts as WG documents, they will need some > further work though. I'm of course reviewing and will provide feedback both > on list and have been talking with (some of) the authors backchannel as > well. > > Aaron >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
