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

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

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.)

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [e-mail]           |  [e-mail]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |    Version:
 Severity:  -            |   Keywords:
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/116>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans