IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Compatibility of name redaction and EV

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Mon, 18 August 2014 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C33A1A6F32 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 0ORoO7lT6zGC for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC36A1A6F2A for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i8so5418344qcq.3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4SAJuscroNnUNZNHa/RUs6gGjy7UDbzhyJHihscPXl8=; b=PMFaj+ePRgHnUL5ENK7zYF/2XYwLLKtYK6ipc6A4qLx9PTyK6jXXDFejRVbK8FfMe0 HxALCMA7khBwegeEpd3iniysT8cjaFx8hL5vrEFgeE5YqrLZM/1692gtsNv4XX4VOMbG k4q8BfZ23DcFqRzsqlFFZei3KILKb41BwBbYlAYhrlK7qBDTlrz8OZRUb8IAdgBExHf8 8NXy9cu/BmX443rZRC8Nyj3U4fR3cBnTh+SQg4J74VMJRbg/yqOc7RekkL8yNDCDEL1C A0aBBdAlQfAdl6mqLRiYbCpfw9wfef4h4EGIRle90dWEgf6AuNpBiAk0FhR9CqiYgPPL NOJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4SAJuscroNnUNZNHa/RUs6gGjy7UDbzhyJHihscPXl8=; b=fAZy16MkaucZ/YGRypoOLRyDGKPIfPO5zwCUPPmtgsZkgtOVv3E0VvIouM4dsmIEgB bqoXa8iuG7LMSMofGk4J0rj5I7qW4IXzHFI/wOHe+kNf43zDT105R8mpSbQJl4IApUpj 9QFdARIWm3Ult4/+0e7uj1+SKlu3rK8ruZuRR3g/SK+Tp61n76/A9kV1oEJ0ePNj2fm9 sUYxVAD0NKiqOphq2kFNa62t03I3G8ocNpXOJtkXIfSwC/+dJygLu03SquoWZC5M8Bv/ j0sAQlQCFRBSfkj3rDIrlwOnrINhlfWAP1l3HU0vASXdpXN7ZwTVDBxc8CGDFfPBj+wU pnMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbx9GYbDPriD+K+MQIQsZZ7tf6mB2wKQZlXsORfLKLpcdtrvp2+72DreX+7MKQ5/A8LMAH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.160.83 with SMTP id m19mr58269364qax.95.1408392435841; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.40.68 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53F25A33.5020405@bbn.com>
References: <CABrd9SQ=mW7DoQUkXGv5M=nuoR1fTFG5N1Qc_PyK+mtm6E6s_A@mail.gmail.com> <53F25A33.5020405@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:07:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CABrd9SQcYQCV93CC-1DocNwOrKa0aJVqMaOMVRPWJt3pinvuiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/5OrBZ3wk31np84YHc7-MTtVo10w
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Compatibility of name redaction and EV
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:07:19 -0000

On 18 August 2014 12:55, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Thanks for the analysis you performed to start the discussion on
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct-policy/_p8zRz5Em3s.
>
> However, I believe that this discussion should move to the
> TRANS list, since it addresses a topic that is squarely within
> the scope of the CT standard, right?
>
> Do you disagree?

I am not against there being a discussion in TRANS, but I think there
are two interlinked issues:

1. What signals CT provides for what kinds of certs.

2. What Chrome does in response to those signals.

Each has its own appropriate venue.

I am also mildly confused about how an RFC interacts with standards
that are not controlled by the IETF (i.e. the Base Requirements and
the Extended Validation requirements).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email