IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 06 July 2015 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 E091F1A1A19 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 yCOMYxt37Zub for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF551A07BD for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:50506 helo=COMSEC-2.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1ZCAP4-000AQU-Bq for trans@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:42:02 -0400
Message-ID: <559ABDEA.5020905@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:42:02 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <052.b3ecc6ca8b28cc47e13443079611ce86@tools.ietf.org> <067.7becba46c4f8b854834f9bb0c27374ce@tools.ietf.org> <559A9977.1040808@bbn.com> <CABrd9SRPESqxWhCbKK4asgVY4zM3i_3REYuua=ZEwVTe76rMOQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SRPESqxWhCbKK4asgVY4zM3i_3REYuua=ZEwVTe76rMOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/NGhScwFcrGEXKfiGoPYnOqAjWnk>
Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #73 (rfc6962-bis): Section 3 text re log cert validation is ambiguous
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 06 Jul 2015 17:42:06 -0000

Ben,

> On 6 July 2015 at 16:06, Stephen Kent<kent@bbn.com>  wrote:
>> If there is no standard for the validation checks logs perform, because of a
>> desire to accept malformed certs from (sloppy) CAs, then a CA cannot know
>> whether
>> its submission will be rejected by a log.
> If a CA wants to be sure in advance (why?) that a log will accept its
> certs, then it should conform with the relevant standards.
If we don't cite the "relevant standards" how does a submitter know
what they are? Also, I thought your argument here was that there is no
agreed upon set of standards to which all CAs adhere, so ...

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email