Re: [Trans] Fwd: [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Melinda,

I have complained for a long time (see my messages in June of 2014) that 
6962-bis
failed to define mis-issuance. Thus you ought not surprised that I have 
raised this
issue yet again, since 6962-bis has never been revised to address this 
serious omission.

If 6962-bis is not going to have to wait for the threat model to be
published, then, yes, a cite of that doc won't work. However, using
the definitions of mis-issuance from that doc, will work. Failing to
define mis-issuance in 6962-bis makes it seriously deficient and
provides a basis for it not being approved by the IESG, IMHO.

Steve

> I was quite surprised to see this come through given that
> we've said repeatedly that the threat document isn't going
> to block the -bis document moving forward.  A better
> approach might be to propose text for the -bis draft.
>
> Melinda
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [Trans] [trans] #116 (rfc6962-bis): ned definition for mis-issuance
> Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:40:37 -0800 (PST)
> Resent-From:[e-mail]
> Resent-To:[e-mail]
> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:40:36 -0000
> From: trans issue tracker<[e-mail]>
> To:[e-mail],[e-mail]
> CC:[e-mail]
>
> #116: ned definition for mis-issuance
>
>   the document does not include a definition for misissuance [sic], even
>   though this is the central motivation of CT.  The doc should use the
>   definition from the threat/attacks model, cite that document, and change
>   the spelling to “mis-issuance”  “mis-issue”, “mis-issued”, etc.)
>