IETF Logo Mail Archive

[therightkey] Fwd: [perpass] Draft charter for a Transparency Working Group

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1869D1ADFDA for <therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BjRvX2lghr3g for <therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E527A1ADEBF for <therightkey@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q59so7297069wes.27 for <therightkey@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=RS8dtEi0uO49UcuXtn7qY74oxM7VEBptfER8K4P8xeQ=; b=FOI2Y8WDR5zf+AjNmSRb0wPl0+EvqpD/AGnUQcjSN2aqJy5hN0Zdfc5JMJgAF/LKjW zJhC3ZcGx+aAnQEj6Q0a6BSJO5NemQSNqj2sw6nSM+UjZ9RWg/B4RIEpVo3sAoYzqNZX oVmojFccSceHkPBENINT1eyl8YoQJvq1PkLB8kDSfvZ0XXqTgSEL2Zn/tkW/VuquhNr9 /zoWfovbVnMqUYQAqEbCqOjhVdn6+aLEU6LG5UUTw7JzPPs5piJ0eP52ToLK1czcdMlg lprqYeHXi1hHVIKWbGFT0ugFKPhs/2iy/whMTg/dziySe2O5z/K9IunjgCW9VULbUJKU WZzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.112 with SMTP id j16mr9103253wiw.32.1386802931768; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.243.136 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjNXpszKMqXr231Vti=pfwYn98Fgmuv1T5M__nhGmZHQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABrd9STYF166vXEXNneJfPyfo5VG3LPKmzyZpAhvYnDTsy_U9g@mail.gmail.com> <52A8B1D0.2080304@dcrocker.net> <CABrd9SS9FGsm-waznAHeMr33XzprhRF=DXVjknyL-7bOyArAxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjNXpszKMqXr231Vti=pfwYn98Fgmuv1T5M__nhGmZHQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:02:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgH7ah8PaCi1Aaadv86HsG927sOY4bhu8oBcMTLDTYcvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "therightkey@ietf.org" <therightkey@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba475e4b1f24c504ed4a38c0"
Subject: [therightkey] Fwd: [perpass] Draft charter for a Transparency Working Group
X-BeenThere: therightkey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <therightkey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/therightkey>, <mailto:therightkey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/therightkey/>
List-Post: <mailto:therightkey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:therightkey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey>, <mailto:therightkey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:02:20 -0000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [perpass] Draft charter for a Transparency Working Group
To: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, perpass <perpass@ietf.org>, "
saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>





On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> wrote:

> On 11 December 2013 18:41, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > On 12/11/2013 10:32 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/therightkey/current/msg00680.html
> >
> >
> >
> > The text isn't a draft charter.  It's a very generic statement of an
> idea.
> > Formulating that into the detail an actual charter will be helpful.
> >
> > The text needs to give some explanation of what is being proposed,
> beyond a
> > highly cryptic label like "Cryptographically verifiable logs".  A term
> like
> > that could mean many things and from the message, I can't tell what is
> > meant.
> >
> > The text needs to explain what sort of usage scenario is expected, with
> > enough detail to make the scenario substantive.  That permits the reader
> to
> > get a sense of basic/likely relevance to operational environments.
>
> Am I allowed to refer to RFC 6962 for background?
>
> Reiterating what's in there doesn't seem useful.


Well how far do we want the group to be allowed to stray from RFC 6962?

One approach would be to divide the problem up into two parts:

* An append only log that provides a cryptographic assurance of integrity
that is independent of the trustworthiness of the log maintainer from the
time of the last checkpoint.

* Application of the above to the specific use cases

Initial use cases that the WG agreed to deliver might be

* PKIX certificate signing certificates
* PKIX TLS end entity certificates

Use cases that are in scope but without a delivery undertaking might be
OpenPGP, S/MIME, etc.




-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email