On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, let me be clear about what you (Trevor) are saying in your > message, because I'm not sure. > > - Is it that an error was made in document editing, such that > something that you thought was decided one way made it into the > document in a different, incorrect way? > > - Or is it that you think the issue you brought up was not adequately > considered, and editing of the document went off in the wrong > direction because of that? > > - Or is it that you think the issue you brought up was discussed, the > working group decided otherwise, and the editing went in the direction > of consensus that you disagree with.
I'd say the first two, not the third. But it's hard to know what counts as "decided" or "adequately considered". The main discussion of this I'm aware of was: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02034.html Discussion was light. One of the editors proposed not storing PKP-PRO. I preferred either storing it or not supporting it. Two others were in favor of storing it. The draft was edited seemingly based on "storing". I thought the edits were incomplete so pushed for more, but that may have been misunderstood as it was edited in the other direction, without the issue being re-discussed. In any case, I don't think this is "re-litigating" a contentious or resolved discussion. It just seems like a lightly-discussed issue with some communication breakdown between the discussion above and editing. Trevor > > - Or is it something else? > > Thanks, > Barry, Applications AD > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi folks >>> >>> In the last few days, we've had a bunch of threads re-opening issues with >>> key-pinning, mostly around the PKP-RO. >>> >>> This document has gone through years of discussion on the mailing list, a >>> WGLC and an IETF LC. >>> >>> The document is now under review by the IESG. We (the working group) and >>> the authors need to address comments and discuss ballots by members of the >>> IESG. This is an inappropriate time to raise new substantive issues about >>> the document. >> >> >> PKP-RO isn't a new issue. >> >> The initial draft of PKP-RO was claimed to "follow the same syntax and >> semantics of the Public-Key-Pins header" [1]. >> >> But the text was unclear. When we discussed this in February Ryan >> proposed to not store PKP-RO pins [2,3]. Myself, Daniel Kahn-Gillmor, >> and Tom Ritter proposed to store them [4,5,6], and Chris added text >> for this [7,8,9,10]. >> >> I later discussed other cleanup of the PKP-RO text [11]. As part of >> that Chris changed some of the wording to *not* store PKP-RO pins >> [12]. I pointed out the discrepancy and that "I thought we decided >> the opposite" a couple times [13,14], but there was a misunderstanding >> and he changed things more towards *not* storing PKP-RO [15]. A >> couple days after you declared "this working group has done as much as >> we can", and further discussion would be "counter-productive" [16]. >> >> But I still think storing PKP-RO would be better, and seemed to be the >> group's preference. >> >> >> Trevor >> >> >> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01539.html >> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02030.html >> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02037.html >> [4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02042.html >> [5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02043.html >> [6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02044.html >> [7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02051.html >> [8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02054.html >> [9] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02055.html >> [10] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02069.html >> [11] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02075.html >> [12] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02081.html >> [13] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02084.html >> [14] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02094.html >> [15] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02097.html >> [16] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg02100.html _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
