Bruce/Inigo - Do you think the Transparency section in the revocation doc from Phill and David belongs in the Trust Model doc?
All the best. Tim. > On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, "Ben Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
