Re: [Trans] updated definition and attack analysis text

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 15:06 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 32E1F1A1BC9 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 ErFQJ23_qs6j for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:05:58 -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 1C3201A1BF3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:40366 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XbsoO-000BS9-NU for trans@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:05:56 -0400
Message-ID: <543552C4.7040505@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:05:40 -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: <542C3EFA.7010204@bbn.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607D19412E0@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
In-Reply-To: <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607D19412E0@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060301060002090501050604"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/fzBi6welUJ6a8Bx-PrBD7d2rPvM
Subject: Re: [Trans] updated definition and attack analysis text
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: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:06:01 -0000

Rick,

> Steve,
>
> RFC 6962 says "In order to avoid logs being spammed into uselessness, 
> it is required that each chain is rooted in a known CA certificate", 
> and that's a syntactic check, isn't it? So it's not a question of 
> whether logs will perform syntax checks or not, it's a question of how 
> much syntactic checking will be required.
>
Good point. Logs do perform some syntax checks, but 6962-bis isn't clear 
on the extent of them.
>
> Comments on your text are inline.
>
Thanks for the detailed comments. I have made edits to address all of them.

Steve