Re: [therightkey] Draft charter for a Transparency Working Group

On 11 December 2013 17:44, Livingood, Jason
<Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> I totally understand the problem statement. But what concrete things can
> you enumerate as goals/output of the WG?

I already did enumerate the one current output: RFC 6962-bis.

Other interesting targets include DNSSEC transparency, email-to-key
mappings and binary transparency. All implicitly already in the
charter.

>
>
> Jason
>
> On 12/11/13, 12:23 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thanks Ben,
>>
>>So folks know what we're thinking and in case all the
>>process gibberish isn't clear to you all...
>>
>>Sean and I like the idea of doing this, and the more that
>>it seems to get broader support, the more we'll like it.
>>
>>Since there was already a BoF on this back at IETF-85 [1]
>>that concluded this was work that's relevant to do in
>>the IETF, we're thinking that if a crisp enough charter
>>can be crafted on this list then this wouldn't need another
>>BoF but would be ok to just be pushed into the IESG/IETF
>>approval process.
>>
>>What that means is that when Sean and I think we have a
>>good enough charter draft, then we'll put that into the
>>datatracker and the IESG will do an IESG-internal review
>>to decide if its ready to be sent out for IETF review.
>>If/when the IESG are ok with that going for IETF-wide
>>review then a mail will go to the IETF discuss list so's
>>anyone can comment on the proposed new WG. Then the IESG
>>get to look at it again, and any comments we've gotten,
>>and approve the new WG or not. Charter text tweaks can
>>be expected at each stage.
>>
>>All going well, that could result in a new WG for this
>>being formed early in the new year, before IETF-89
>>with the WG having a first f2f meeting there presumably.
>>
>>So please comment on Ben's text and the above with that
>>in mind. I assume Ben will hold the pen on draft charter
>>text and update that as comments are received.
>>
>>And please use this list for now, since this is the
>>one we used for RFC 6962 so probably has the right
>>people. When/if we form a WG we can make a new list
>>or use this one if folks prefer that.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>S.
>>
>>[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/certrans.html
>>
>>On 12/11/2013 04:55 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>> Who's in?
>>>
>>> "Problem statement: many Internet protocols require a mapping between
>>> some kind of identifier and some kind of key, for example, HTTPS,
>>> SMTPS, IPSec, DNSSEC and OpenPGP.
>>>
>>> These protocols rely on either ad-hoc mappings, or on authorities
>>> which attest to the mappings.
>>>
>>>
>>> History shows that neither of these mechanisms is entirely
>>> satisfactory. Ad-hoc mappings are difficult to discover and maintain,
>>> and authorities make mistakes or are subverted.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cryptographically verifiable logs can help to ameliorate the problems
>>> by making it possible to discover and rectify errors before they can
>>> cause harm.
>>>
>>>
>>> These logs can also assist with other interesting problems, such as
>>> how to assure end users that software they are running is, indeed, the
>>> software they intend to run.
>>>
>>>
>>> Work items: Specify a standards-track mechanism to apply verifiable
>>> logs to HTTP/TLS (i.e. RFC 6962-bis).
>>>
>>>
>>> Discuss mechanisms and techniques that allow cryptographically
>>> verifiable logs to be deployed to improve the security of protocols
>>> and software distribution. Where such mechanisms appear sufficiently
>>> useful, the WG will re-charter to add relevant new work items."
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> therightkey mailing list
>>> therightkey@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>therightkey mailing list
>>therightkey@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
>