Re: [saag] draft-iab-crypto-alg-agility-00

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rich,
At 14:54 06-04-2014, Salz, Rich wrote:
>I know what the text says.  But there are no protocol operations, 
>really, it's just HTTP/JSON, right?

I read the RFC again.  The better choice was "protocol operations" 
because of some requirements.  There is a thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71257.html about 
the term "protocol".

>Having said that, I think the agility document should say "protocols 
>and data formats."
>
>I was arguing (with Google folks, mainly) for crypto identifies in 
>the CT data structures before the WG was convened. And I still think 
>that CT should be brought in line with the letter and spirit of the 
>agility document:  identify the mechanisms used, in the data types. 
>If interop is a concern, make the current set be MUST and say SHOULD 
>NOT implement anything else.
>
>CT should not be a special case exemption from the agility spec.

And the above is the part which I would look at in terms of data 
formats.  It is better to solve the Certificate Transparency part in 
the TRANS working group.  The agility document is in the IAB 
Stream.  It's better to keep the two documents separate for now.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy