Hi Ben.  We want to move this document to WG draft status.  Do you want to 
address Gerv's comments before we hold a ballot?  I suggest we do that.

All  the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: wpkops [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:54 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

Hi Ben,

On 27/05/14 22:12, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Here is another draft with suggested changes from Santosh accepted, 
> and the addition of “Security Considerations” subsections, based on 
> our discussions of May 13^th .

Sorry if I'm missing context here, but the intro to the document suggests that 
it's documentation of observed browser behaviour (i.e. a record of reality), 
but then as early as section 1.4 it starts by saying browsers "should" do X or 
Y. E.g.:

"A browser should only use its trust anchor store to determine the trust anchor 
for a Server’s certification path."

Taking this particular statement as an example: what happens if the browser 
wants to use the OS store? Or both its own and the OSes? Or a remote store with 
auto-download such as Windows uses?

To take another example from 1.4: "Specifically, the browser should be able to 
use unsecure HTTP and unsecure LDAP method." I can confidently say that we have 
no plans to reintroduce LDAP fetching to Firefox, and the publication of an RFC 
would be unlikely (British understatement) to change that. (We are also pretty 
unlikely to do caIssuers chasing, but I am 0.1% less adamant about that.)

As more constructive input: many of the behaviours you note are features of the 
underlying SSL implementation rather than the browser. This is, I believe, why 
Chrome and Safari on OS X don't do name constraints (they use the system SSL 
library) but Firefox does (which uses NSS). I agree it's difficult because the 
exact user experience _is_ defined by the individual browsers. But the document 
might be easier to understand and follow if you acknowledged the connection 
with the library being used.

Gerv

_______________________________________________
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