Iñigo and Bruce, Perhaps we should revise the Trust Model document to describe how browser, root store, and cryptolibrary are related? In addressing Gerv's comments, I am thinking of starting with the following "This document reviews the current processing behaviors of cryptolibraries, and the browsers they support, with respect to SSL/TLS session establishment between a server and a browser, ..." or something along those lines. Thoughts? Thanks, Ben
>-----Original Message----- >From: wpkops [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:10 AM >To: Tim Moses; [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft > >On 05/06/14 14:37, Tim Moses wrote: >> 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. > >Again, apologies for lack of knowledge of the process, but: the doc is full of "to be expanded", > "we plan to..." etc. So there will be lots of further change. Is that what "Draft" means? > >My two examples were two of many; they were actually given to try and get clarity on the >purpose and goals of the document. If that's written up somewhere, do point me to it. :-) > >Gerv > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
