Re: [TLS] OCSP must staple

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Thu, 05 June 2014 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144791A00E7 for <>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TL2f9k_dQmFe for <>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DFF1A00D7 for <>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q59so1034810wes.35 for <>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RvtTJIpwCSv2SMYB2C1oJ5qTyLcn8O6W/UQrObmjgAw=; b=Ydd+T51XdKmUBLlODYgGIjuMJgCBK4Pnxr+pFtqnTIG0ePVO9t+5LfXE6zJCKiwsfv NlvgJ8RycLI6Zgie7zbjAL7eW5guijs4+YQ/hWFo8LDCgUomTiQO5wbf23YPWUPimgcm +srlyvCjYuT7XD/YmHClXizk60Krr6s4UUsLThOPwHap4b/HWN7rLhUHqss45cVFcaE7 qH8z9W51Gi231xu4cRJQeQW5VXhGiwDKgBD/D9V3UXQO1ifFgndCJq2sH8p/4VHAi2jS MaKaoiRYXFEWJsXtIkXYt+9+3mypKay92exKbHbcbzUCTcCSwJLLWNihaIVUE24r7Rxi o6Dg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id f11mr15222170wik.59.1401972022923; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <097101cf7aa7$17f960a0$47ec21e0$> <> <>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:40:22 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:35:39 -0700
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] OCSP must staple
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:40:36 -0000

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Stephen Farrell
<> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 04/06/14 01:39, Sean Turner wrote:
>> I believe that draft has been abandoned in favor of:
>> Personally, I don’t think this draft is applicable to the TLS WG and
>> would be better suited as an AD sponsored draft.  I know PHB
>> approached me about sponsoring it but I think we both got busy before
>> the end of my term.  I’ve not doubt PHB will at some point approach
>> Stephen/Kathleen about sponsoring it.  If you’re interested in
>> supporting it, sending them a message might help
>> (
> I did discuss AD sponsoring this with Phill and am fine with
> that plan since there is (I believe) support for implementing
> it in some browsers.
> So Phill - please tell me when you think this is ready and
> if possible recruit a document shepherd if you've not already.

With that answer in hand, I suggest that we first do an internal last
call on the draft currently on the table to see that everyone is

By which I simply mean, lets make get people to actually read that
particular draft rather than start a cabal. So if we give folks a week
and then we can go forward with the document shepherd?

I do need to write an IANA piece which I will do today. At the time I
wrote it the assignment was not an IANA one.

I am pretty sure the document is ready otherwise. I took out the bit
that allowed a minimum version of TLS to be specified after
discovering that is not practical from one of the browser providers.