All - I have no fundamental objection to expanding the scope in the ways 
suggested.

It's true that the original idea was to limit the scope to server-auth to Web 
browsers.  That's because vulnerabilities have been demonstrated and the impact 
can clearly be severe.  Do those conditions exist for client-auth and CalDAV?  
If not, I might assign them lower priority.

On the other hand, if they impact the workload by no more than (say) 10%, why 
wouldn't we include them?

I think it's important to remember that increased workload must be borne not 
just by the editors but also by the reviewers (every subscriber to the 
mail-list).

All the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Carl Wallace
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Jon Callas; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Second draft charter proposal

On 8/30/12 12:28 PM, "Jon Callas" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Carl Wallace wrote:
>
>>> And for issuers, it can be difficult to predict what proportion of 
>>> the user population will accept a certificate chain with certain 
>>> characteristics.  For instance, when a browser includes a nonce in 
>>> an OCSP request but the server supplies a response that does not 
>>> include the nonce, it is hard to know which browsers will accept and 
>>> which will reject the response.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Is client authentication processing performed by web servers in scope?
>>If
>> not, explicitly push that out of scope.
>
>It would be nice if it were in scope. Client authorization is a vastly 
>under-used feature.
>
>I wouldn't want to endanger everything else over it, but if we keep 
>sweeping it under the rug, it will continue to languish.

I agree and would like to see it stay in scope as well.  


_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops

Reply via email to