Re: [Trans] path validation

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 01/10/14 15:30, Stephen Kent wrote:
> 
> 
> How can we proceed on CT if we don't have a solid definition of the
> problem it purports to address? Certainly detecting mis-issuance
> has to be well-defined.

I think this is the crux of the matter.

Mis-issuance is not a feature but a bug. Attempting to
describe all possible bugs of any sort is futile. If you
argue that a CT RFC has to describe all possible bugs, then
that amounts to arguing to not do CT. But the IETF has
reached consensus to do CT so it seems that others do not
agree with you that "detecting mis-issuance has to be
well-defined" at least if that is meant to call for a
complete enumeration of all the ways in which mis-issuance
might occur. (And I don't get what else you might have
meant, but please correct me if I'm misreading what
you've written.)

Having some examples of mis-issuance described is quite
reasonable. Asking that all forms of mis-issuance be
documented is not reasonable.

Now as to CABF, while its very reasonable to think about
their requirements, I don't think it'd be a good plan
to hard-code a dependency on a version of those into a CT
RFC. Their baseline reqs doc has changed 3 times this year
already for example and 5 times in 2013 and I suspect will
continue to evolve significantly.

But if you see a stable useful and quotable definition of
mis-issuance in one of their documents, then sending a
pointer to that text would be good. I don't know if there
is such a piece of text though.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I'm not sure CABF would describe themselves as an SDO
either, but that's a mere matter of terminology.