Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precertificate format discussion?
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Fri, 19 September 2014 17:18 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 9CF271A0344 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 4QxuDn-jgvYq for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A2431A0395 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:41266 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XV1pX-000LVv-KT for trans@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <541C6571.5050609@bbn.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:18:41 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <541A010E.8050402@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <541A010E.8050402@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/cNo1M05x3D2Qxmp9yDa4PBEzqOQ
Subject: Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precertificate format discussion?
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: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:18:50 -0000
Melinda, > Related, there's a proposal on the table to walk through cert data and > justify SCT contents. Does this sound about right? Based on Ben's response to my attack analysis, in which indicated that he had a much broader definition for mis-issuance, I plan to find the relevant CABF docs, and generate the appendices that I think are needed to define the term accurately. I'll revise my attack analysis text, including the definition of mis-issuance. Once that is done, I'll generate the mapping between cert content and requirements for SCT inclusion. I hope to provide some new text next week. Steve
- [Trans] Where do things stand with the precertifi… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precer… Brian Smith
- Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precer… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precer… Erwann Abalea
- Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precer… Stephen Kent
- Re: [Trans] Where do things stand with the precer… Melinda Shore