Re: [Trans] picking up draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Mon, 08 March 2021 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85913A0AD3 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 Lm8YwnmpvNHv for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E3623A0AD6 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 128BRu0e013194; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:27:56 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 128BRu0e013194
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1615202876; bh=WEKJLy9MiIDD04Osj1rfM17oQQfjDnJz//VIUgNjN1g=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BAxzz9m0eudY5yfKMqpFnFL8gLUvbN/dwm99XS7zlcF7/ZrvwFz5UYnLBxDN+zIJi VwLLF9kUyfrXWq5P4cOCBozoTo8RyDEkQOQC5NDs3MUIVGXuGfKAFU1uiJp3dfYVz2 NGaVZoC9wuze9Gs2L3IRXdET4VAHVAdLVL1QiE6I=
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (morris.ad.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.46]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 128BRsHY019775; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:27:54 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:27:54 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:27:54 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
CC: Trans <trans@ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Thread-Topic: [Trans] picking up draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
Thread-Index: AQHXEcfS/JN1cfVHzkCToIyRm4/auKp5xC6AgAA0RJA=
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 11:27:53 +0000
Message-ID: <7a50c254071d494f9c676a8c55eccdf8@cert.org>
References: <a12ce292-a8aa-88ee-e46d-4f7bc7c0526b@nohats.ca> <CACsn0ckTZVjUZs=FxGmfM6Wn4YdCxoZr=g9Vj5MCwYwnyEKQUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ckTZVjUZs=FxGmfM6Wn4YdCxoZr=g9Vj5MCwYwnyEKQUg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.203.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7a50c254071d494f9c676a8c55eccdf8certorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/ipmBcOxLuLQ1rM4ra8fojmuaxxc>
Subject: Re: [Trans] picking up draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Mar 2021 11:28:01 -0000


From: Trans <trans-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Watson Ladd
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:20 PM
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Trans <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] picking up draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis



On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:59 AM Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca<mailto:paul@nohats.ca>> wrote:
>
>
> Dear WG,
>
> It has been a while since there has been activity in the trans working
> group. We are going to pick up the last remaining issues over the few
> days and see if we can wrap up the draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
> document. If needed, I will act as a Document Editor to assist Rob
> Stradling as Author. The other Authors have let us know that they
> are no longer able to give this document their further attention.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/
>
> The current status is that the document needs a revision after
> some comments from the IESG. There are two DISCUSSes open which
> we will try to summarize below. Hopefully, we can then start
> a discussion where the WG provides new text, and then we will
> get that out in an updated draft. Please remember it is important
> to provide actual text, as the authors of the document are either
> unavailable or severely limtied in time. So Rob or the chairs will
> make updating the documents, but it is really up to the working
> group to provide the text.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/
>
> (Alexey Melnikov) Discuss
>
> 1)  The "urn:ietf:params:trans:error:" needs to be registered at
>       https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xhtml#params-1
>
> This requires new text in the IANA Considerations section.
>
> 2)  Does "error" need a registry too ?
>
> If so, this requires new text in the IANA Considerations section.
> If not, there needs to be clarifying text to make that obvious.
>
> (Benjamin Kaduk) Discuss
>
> 3) inconsistency / conflicts about the minimum array size of NodeHash
>
> This requires modifing existing text.
>
> 4) Section 6 on OCSP contains language no longer applicable for the
>      latest TLS version 1.3.
>
> This should be extended to cover 1.3 (or replaced to only cover 1.3
> and no earlier versions??)
>
> 5) Need for "greater clarity on the (non-)usage of CT for TLS client
> certificates"
>
> Perhaps Benjamin can clarify this request with some more details?
>
>
>
> There are still a number of Comments open, that ideally should also
> be resolved. Once we have the DISCUSS items resolved, we will try
> to send these Comment items to the lists for improvement/resolving,
> or leaving them as is if we don't get feedback.
>
> There isn't that much work left. Perhaps during IETF 110, we can get
> some people together and work on these last few items? If interested,
> let us know and we will try to find a time slot that works.

I've been a lurker, but point me at the repo and I can give it a good try with some text.

[Roman] https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs
Thanks,
Roman



>
> Paul & Melinda
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org<mailto:Trans@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans