IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Contributing to the issue tracker

Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> Thu, 24 July 2014 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
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 947E11B2815 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.313
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 r_J5P8H_4jLC for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hezmatt.org (mpalmer-1-pt.tunnel.tserv8.dal1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f0e:9e6::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4431B280C for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mistress.home.hezmatt.org (unknown [10.6.66.6]) by mail.hezmatt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EBB282E0B for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:20:13 +1000 (EST)
Received: by mistress.home.hezmatt.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D62B29FB95; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:20:12 +1000 (EST)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:20:12 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: trans@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140724212012.GK5739@hezmatt.org>
References: <53CFB67A.9010904@gmail.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607CD6A0ECF@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM> <CABrd9STdZFFMBnKQ=MH=yMhf_ndFsSSr6Ve2CoGUBNDzeNiD6Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D11D94.2080502@bbn.com> <CABrd9ST9wbWW3gTqQD+oiPkchk2zARx74Ycp2zjp=Z-7JDyjHA@mail.gmail.com> <53D136B2.7000706@bbn.com> <CABrd9SQUYmUJ9nDo_wNCbx1Ye0ixCHE37N3N8jTh-6naP04sTw@mail.gmail.com> <53D16326.3070805@bbn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53D16326.3070805@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/E7L4pyTZOzoVXIWtRwdLpXgQjgc
Subject: Re: [Trans] Contributing to the issue tracker
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: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:20:16 -0000

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 03:48:54PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> >>A discussion of what Google is implementing, based on an Experimental
> >>RFC, ought not be construed as relevant to what a standards track RFC
> >>will mandate.  Or, are you saying that Google feels that browser
> >>vendors, CAs and log operators will be reluctant to deploy a standard
> >>that deviates in significant ways from the Experimental protocol?
> >
> >No, I mentioned it only because it appears to be a point of confusion.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. So long as the folks (other than Google)
> deploying 6962 don't object to the fact that 6962-bis may have a number of
> differences, OK.

As someone who is planning on providing a public 6962-compatible log server
and monitor/auditor well in advance of the Google CT deadline, I do not
object to the fact that 6962-bis may have a number of differences.

- Matt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email