Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4
trans issue tracker
2015-11-16
trans
/arch/msg/trans/OFlI0XPmUJFfK6gb7DapGzjqjtk/
2116543
1646673
[Trans] Fwd: [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance[Trans] Fwd: [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance
Melinda Shore
2015-11-14
trans
/arch/msg/trans/bDAhkQ8CX2dxTKf6dGwKSQl83Tk/
2116158
1646564
Re: [Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted"Re: [Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted"
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/mRHsf11awr0Tx4gAs9DdJNlLK7Y/
2116070
1646563
[Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs?[Trans] [trans] #120 (rfc6962-bis): public vs. private logs?
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/0D5v20Ajm1UIznX4wqHXi0RGsVM/
2115900
1646560
[Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction[Trans] [trans] #119 (rfc6962-bis): confusing wording about log checking in Introduction
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/MQfK_1YWee4B7tsB1ZplZ-2LWec/
2115898
1646561
[Trans] [trans] #118 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor function description problem[Trans] [trans] #118 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor function description problem
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/SLkGbzYr0i-QcodcpeQiHS094oc/
2115896
1646562
[Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted"[Trans] [trans] #117 (rfc6962-bis): log description as "untrusted"
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/xv-wecujRe8SztKtA4oAwCkFGRY/
2115894
1646563
[Trans] [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance[Trans] [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/TdzwZfbFBRD4rld2Wxzq_2foPUk/
2115891
1646564
Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequateRe: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate
Stephen Kent
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/3UMuVsvjLzw9LycbGsNx8_2FC5M/
2115841
1646671
Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequateRe: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/LK9HDkZzZzd57C4rWXFuES20R2I/
2115757
1646671
Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequateRe: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Cvz1XkZRJ12jXbtNNLYAp3r9AhY/
2115756
1646671
Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correctRe: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/NONDpswL2bscT-1X_92gN6ul2-s/
2115709
1646565
Re: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correctRe: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/eDSqWy8fjq_8lbE0mmwFM5fnP9o/
2115695
1646565
[Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct[Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct
trans issue tracker
2015-11-13
trans
/arch/msg/trans/wnSGyCh9YeHQsBspmqM2KsTTh9A/
2115677
1646565
Re: [Trans] log metadata questionsRe: [Trans] log metadata questions
Matt Palmer
2015-11-11
trans
/arch/msg/trans/4C2ZyG68ZQgVarhR2nSTEXF0ftU/
2114912
1646566
Re: [Trans] log metadata questionsRe: [Trans] log metadata questions
Eran Messeri
2015-11-11
trans
/arch/msg/trans/5xMm5GsQ9xbcugdo7OrDDDWzvcg/
2114567
1646566
[Trans] log metadata questions[Trans] log metadata questions
David Mandelberg
2015-11-11
trans
/arch/msg/trans/FWiUBIgfk23i__EIb32HBlNuhbM/
2114441
1646566
Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4
Stephen Kent
2015-11-10
trans
/arch/msg/trans/apgU3SjeaLbn7NLvIkVc9dgIjsM/
2114062
1646673
Re: [Trans] [trans] #99 (rfc6962-bis): Clearer definition of when a certificate is CT-compliant neededRe: [Trans] [trans] #99 (rfc6962-bis): Clearer definition of when a certificate is CT-compliant needed
Stephen Kent
2015-11-10
trans
/arch/msg/trans/a2Xae3i0CEDQ7fqnwdQyHclRlHk/
2114061
1646612
Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4
Stephen Kent
2015-11-10
trans
/arch/msg/trans/tvZa7tLlxS5asE_U09gByHBRhus/
2114057
1646673
Re: [Trans] add-chain return valueRe: [Trans] add-chain return value
Adam Eijdenberg
2015-11-09
trans
/arch/msg/trans/hivBLPSB3Ps5rHsFwSH9efmOS9M/
2113584
1646567
[Trans] add-chain return value[Trans] add-chain return value
Peter Bowen
2015-11-08
trans
/arch/msg/trans/LN1uYAq0ySXuzsWQxM3NDvTEAUQ/
2113125
1646567
Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015
Melinda Shore
2015-11-05
trans
/arch/msg/trans/fiOiDtgncLpY8z-5fN256icc4zU/
2110867
1646605
Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015
Tom Ritter
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/jmW5sq8oKiy1vk8FkZAWaNHUawk/
2110447
1646605
Re: [Trans] [trans] #104 (rfc6962-bis): Add SCT Inclusion Proof extensionRe: [Trans] [trans] #104 (rfc6962-bis): Add SCT Inclusion Proof extension
trans issue tracker
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/10YTz4k3slFvnKtpWrezXpCuCVY/
2110392
1646604
[Trans] [trans] #114 (rfc6962-bis): Name the OCSP Stapling TLS extension correctly[Trans] [trans] #114 (rfc6962-bis): Name the OCSP Stapling TLS extension correctly
trans issue tracker
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/MJbuMzGJQj692NB04dZQDdriNd8/
2110349
1646568
Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015
Jeremy Rowley
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/rL3oV33fX4TlYPfbv2f7jxexI6I/
2110348
1646605
Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015
Jeremy Rowley
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/qBIhhRerAIhjJMdVzEfaVeVhEZo/
2110347
1646605
Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015Re: [Trans] [ct-policy] Re: Certificate Transparency Newsletter - August 2015
Rob Stradling
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/zoHYwwGjVOJGVNuwuTokAD_FfpI/
2110338
1646605
[Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension[Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2015-11-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Gg0A6H8zqhDiXGKyB4FDoRd_zD0/
2110336
1646569
[Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension[Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/0k2AcnWr1rewzSKm1oczhUekOeE/
2109346
1646570
[Trans] [trans] #111 (rfc6962-bis): Consider using the cached-info TLS extension[Trans] [trans] #111 (rfc6962-bis): Consider using the cached-info TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/1H8kr34CGtJZBq1tjV3qKB1-9CQ/
2109323
1646571
Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/ZUmq4MFEUH4iMTpzHUtrkSQrSkw/
2109233
1646673
Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor"Re: [Trans] [trans] #102 (rfc6962-bis): "root" should be "trust anchor"
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/xVTGmrxkcuIYQRANsV9tafuEMDA/
2109218
1646608
Re: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSARe: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Vsm-XC9j5N3rbD_EP9nuAZbC9HU/
2109171
1646653
Re: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA ConsiderationsRe: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA Considerations
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/ADUm3hUxEVtEvM8fakAi-fE3npU/
2109163
1646655
Re: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSARe: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Yztql0JCJ3-Tg_w9xrdtFmIQryo/
2108604
1646653
Re: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA ConsiderationsRe: [Trans] [trans] #81 (rfc6962-bis): OIDs and IANA Considerations
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/b_x3oe1ouf8gH30Y5C9_adATv9E/
2108587
1646655
Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequateRe: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/l5Cj6IFsvYFhY_63Hwag2ySGpv4/
2108583
1646671
Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #76 (rfc6962-bis): Normative client behavior specified in Section 3.4
trans issue tracker
2015-11-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/i_8BpMURSuy0JNd9H_ZaUlxLOd8/
2108572
1646673
40 Messages