Re: [lamps] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06

Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com> Tue, 04 June 2019 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA1B120139 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXm3E2GGfOdA for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se (smtp.outgoing.loopia.se [194.9.95.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E551200A4 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s554.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s554.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A34C1F146BA for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:05:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s499.loopia.se (unknown [172.21.200.97]) by s554.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5CE794051; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:05:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s470.loopia.se (unknown [172.21.200.36]) by s499.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCDB1349A45; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:05:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se
Received: from s499.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s470.loopia.se (s470.loopia.se [172.22.190.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8LMTP id oah77E4YsWkz; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:04:59 +0200 (CEST)
X-Loopia-Auth: user
X-Loopia-User: mailstore2@aaa-sec.com
X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 85.235.7.89
Received: from [192.168.2.38] (gw.aaa-sec.ideon.se [85.235.7.89]) (Authenticated sender: mailstore2@aaa-sec.com) by s499.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F40A21349A47; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:04:58 +0200 (CEST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.19.0.190512
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 08:04:58 +0200
From: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.all@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <8AD60BC4-4A2D-4A13-BED5-B12E0E0FE42B@aaa-sec.com>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
References: <155917666691.9144.10382733252232760132@ietfa.amsl.com> <3f60c58a-7923-d5da-e500-052588a294fb@eff.org> <MWHPR14MB153321BC12FEBA375EF9185D83180@MWHPR14MB1533.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR14MB153321BC12FEBA375EF9185D83180@MWHPR14MB1533.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/b4HB5Y6TL7TMoj3v-QLwp6I9ODw>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 06:14:43 -0000

Sounds great. 

I just made a note. I do not call for any change.

Stefan Santesson 

On 2019-05-30, 20:40, "Tim Hollebeek" <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> wrote:

    Just to make it official, I'm the chair of the Validation Subcommittee of the 
    Server Certificate Working Group of the CA/Browser Forum, and I intend to 
    submit a ballot to make RFC 6844bis mandatory in the event it is published as 
    an IETF RFC.
    
    -Tim
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:30 PM
    > To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>om>; secdir@ietf.org
    > Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.all@ietf.org
    > Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
    >
    > On 5/29/19 5:37 PM, Stefan Santesson via Datatracker wrote:
    > > A common aspect of standards documents is that they only are relevant
    > > to those who declare compliance to the standard. This document is
    > > different as it relies on that all parties (CA:s) are aware of this
    > > standard and performs the stipulated checks.
    >
    > In practice this has been stipulated for public CAs by the CA/Browser Forum
    > Baseline Requirements since September 2017:
    > https://cabforum.org/2017/03/08/ballot-187-make-caa-checking-mandatory/.
    >
    > In other words, the CP for this particular community of trust incorporates 
    > RFC
    > 6844, making it mandatory. The intent is that once RFC6844bis is 
    > standardized,
    > CA/Browser Forum will have a followup ballot incorporating it.