Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Tom Ritter
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/wb_MKQiEitskxDWuyXsbTa9HeMk/
2163113
1646499
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Ben Laurie
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/M5R6YOsjTgjHytNkXIH7XfoR8iw/
2163111
1646499
Re: [Trans] DNS for CTRe: [Trans] DNS for CT
Ben Laurie
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/MNUvj2pCigWp4r2_pmZUoJUbk1E/
2163106
1646498
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Rob Stradling
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/kQEVVOt0Nq04z-U-H9HgxQovL84/
2163046
1646499
Re: [Trans] DNS for CTRe: [Trans] DNS for CT
Ben Laurie
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/AthoSqOi8R-2VQpkJdKaOdlrElo/
2162956
1646498
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/9E_sBCdfQ57RyXmctLurOSFucKM/
2162930
1646499
Re: [Trans] DNS for CTRe: [Trans] DNS for CT
Paul Hoffman
2016-02-24
trans
/arch/msg/trans/48vWU-Sbx_FhERb97B3w5xnAk0k/
2162910
1646498
[Trans] DNS for CT[Trans] DNS for CT
Ben Laurie
2016-02-23
trans
/arch/msg/trans/8qwf-p9K6gb4XJOtG8N9T-7Ug04/
2162601
1646498
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Ben Laurie
2016-02-23
trans
/arch/msg/trans/BmJyLB1ArB1zwMPkZSh4iozGXb4/
2162467
1646499
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Rob Stradling
2016-02-23
trans
/arch/msg/trans/RCT7Qpc52DaucKo-lpm_iuieW_k/
2162458
1646499
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Tom Ritter
2016-02-23
trans
/arch/msg/trans/jvwZ8M-HzKM5sVcsAinLUth_dO0/
2162357
1646499
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Rob Stradling
2016-02-22
trans
/arch/msg/trans/5m9LCAi0UghLgOPl9DMnhggENFM/
2161893
1646499
Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?Re: [Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Ben Laurie
2016-02-22
trans
/arch/msg/trans/tAsw6mulsuc5QErPN8A5igexA8c/
2161878
1646499
[Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?[Trans] can CT defend against dual CA compromise?
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
2016-02-21
trans
/arch/msg/trans/HFH0InODJhH_nZ-U5KxV5FHSOZU/
2161597
1646499
Re: [Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CARe: [Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CA
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/zVFcHN9bgNvAfYSO9tzRlZYLLlg/
2160679
1646500
Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirementsRe: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/tgWsVMzKn55zZrVZJyWHeerHGPI/
2160677
1646558
Re: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incompleteRe: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incomplete
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/8vdr5vE3vU2yNL48kfJ-CZqyx18/
2160676
1646557
Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specificationRe: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/HK7oJ1z2yBYjuFItWsv5PyYKTNs/
2160675
1646532
Re: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specificationRe: [Trans] [trans] #139 (rfc6962-bis): move text re: domain labels to CA specification
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/PJj2sSpnAT7zgLrgfOpYf1V8uGk/
2160662
1646532
Re: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incompleteRe: [Trans] [trans] #123 (rfc6962-bis): log clients description too informal, incomplete
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/fMZg3er0snj--7PVzLh4cK8SOmE/
2160661
1646557
Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirementsRe: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements
trans issue tracker
2016-02-18
trans
/arch/msg/trans/SAWGhjwxg7bQUBN_16-7LX8P3nQ/
2160659
1646558
Re: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one placeRe: [Trans] [trans] #143 (rfc6962-bis): Putting TLS server guidance in one place
trans issue tracker
2016-02-17
trans
/arch/msg/trans/1soLfG2cU1F9p2E9v1hLo7ONFGY/
2159923
1646527
Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?
trans issue tracker
2016-02-16
trans
/arch/msg/trans/_i6RX64r22TBb6IDAW9YNhowlEk/
2159562
1646529
Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?
trans issue tracker
2016-02-16
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Or50QCnty_x7At1O_oCpdIuxfr0/
2159389
1646529
Re: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirementsRe: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements
trans issue tracker
2016-02-12
trans
/arch/msg/trans/NGYZqv8tmnZW_ynj5hAh2xiHu2A/
2158228
1646753
Re: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirementsRe: [Trans] [trans] #53 (rfc6962-bis): Clarify log entry ordering requirements
trans issue tracker
2016-02-12
trans
/arch/msg/trans/V9bl3ddf23tJ53Eea87PsXaIzdY/
2157982
1646753
Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (rfc6962-bis): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" labelRe: [Trans] [trans] #57 (rfc6962-bis): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label
trans issue tracker
2016-02-12
trans
/arch/msg/trans/pFVlMFz_BMcvADZahlKKVCXcx0Y/
2157963
1646728
[Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CA[Trans] [trans] #154 (rfc6962-bis): CSR extension to convey a certificate subscriber's CT preferences to the CA
trans issue tracker
2016-02-12
trans
/arch/msg/trans/uXqtVIDMKocaaatGl0jcc3AbnGc/
2157956
1646500
Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extensionRe: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2016-02-10
trans
/arch/msg/trans/_J-rZLemCmYkd35noGc9Vyisdfc/
2157033
1646569
Re: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extensionRe: [Trans] [trans] #113 (rfc6962-bis): Add advice about the tls-feature TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2016-02-10
trans
/arch/msg/trans/2tkVxyyj9GnnTgtW48sl59eBszU/
2156888
1646569
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
2016-02-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/Zhu8XjlF09kwsWSk9fFScYJ64NM/
2154502
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
2016-02-04
trans
/arch/msg/trans/EXCrpeENISHTohvXHFOV6oWocZ8/
2154157
1646565
Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4Re: [Trans] [trans] #93 (rfc6962-bis): Monitor description: Inconsistency between intro and section 5.4
Eran Messeri
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/WtA91zIxmEBjU5ODNXj9LpNZxNY/
2153585
1646536
Re: [Trans] Review of the architecture document (draft 1)Re: [Trans] Review of the architecture document (draft 1)
Eran Messeri
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/KvS-lV_nLCHaOaYyV6J6lUWEKNs/
2153577
1646510
Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?Re: [Trans] [trans] #23 (rfc6962-bis): How can TLS clients match an SCT to a certificate?
trans issue tracker
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/chIoxappdpVA7R34FdiBVaIYAHo/
2153520
1646529
Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extensionRe: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/kahcapRJQpRPcB2X3Wnmk_QaNoc/
2153518
1646570
Re: [Trans] [trans] #121 (rfc6962-bis): log metadata disseminationRe: [Trans] [trans] #121 (rfc6962-bis): log metadata dissemination
trans issue tracker
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/RJ-gjSv5gNsYNLOV1_FrmPjm3pg/
2153517
1646559
Re: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behaviorRe: [Trans] [trans] #109 (rfc6962-bis): log shutdown timeline and behavior
trans issue tracker
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/mQrpJHH3hrnoaI6FOcG_ywg2Eok/
2153515
1646581
Re: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extensionRe: [Trans] [trans] #112 (rfc6962-bis): Consider permitting the status_request_v2 TLS extension
trans issue tracker
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/-tIcmopUZWP_DOtmYWaNGAASwgU/
2153514
1646570
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
2016-02-03
trans
/arch/msg/trans/0Fa3El70qspmQ03DeIielC-wCbc/
2153510
1646565