Ok, I´m fine, no problem if this is only for SSL certs. But maybe sometime in the near future there´s a need to deal with a complete trust model in the web.
Iñigo Barreira Responsable del Área técnica [email protected] 945067705 ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ! ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente. De: Stephen Kent [mailto:[email protected]] Enviado el: jueves, 27 de junio de 2013 16:36 Para: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo CC: [email protected] Asunto: Re: [wpkops] Silence is deafening - Trust Model Paper Please re-read the charter. The scope of the WG is narrower than you seem to wish. If this is going to be a persistent problem, then maybe you ought not be a co-author for this document. Steve ------ On 6/27/13 8:27 AM, [email protected] wrote: Hi Then we´re assuming that web PKI means only TLS connections, am I right? So "web" is used only in "browsers"? I think this is not fair. We are talking about trust models and browsers root stores is only "one" of these models, not the only one and we should consider the others. I don´t get why we are assuming that web PKI is only referred to the browsers, and if so, the document could be very simple, just pointing to the browsers policies or leave it to the CAB Forum, which is not a standards body like it can be IETF. If we´re to produce a standard on trust models we should consider all options, not just one because it´s the most used. That is not an standard. Regards Hiya,
<<attachment: image001.png>>
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
