IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] running code (was: Re: Draft agenda)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 151A41A0348 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 egkh7hQ0aYwm for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116551A0320 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id y1so630477lam.37 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Pi0ugaEIosBfWNfET8pBV0kzpOFBe7WGfLlb5/D+c/8=; b=CQn+k5VlOhJV8+J6+OQWlmkfww1E8ut3yIUsmSSCeAY9iAnmxWBXurEYOflla9FuSB y1argRdNkfPeQyYNyKcka35XCrfz3RsCo6YtuuL4aLJq6a3qj0nSiK2Lai6yV5XwMUB0 qZptuRDT8JEufDkfG3uyRQ5jXtnRB5TQTWEmEZ1bDTlWaY94wSmBT02nvJlp877n2pRo gA6nVEr6w+VxDBwB75kHIjqC8VKvuhS0F9EdxYX6iypX+93Kl4Kf6AAeCeZRKoP5epvX Tfj0b95z4Jcq10WwbLiTMMOz67uVK/pWTXt4oPLIMPWgz1fTCTBOMhcBdno7jIs39s53 6h8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.25.165 with SMTP id d5mr99927lag.89.1393422394210; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:46:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <530DE176.9020401@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <53063600.4020102@gmail.com> <CALzYgEe0XrQdKDZN3_dwFLnM87+TXyYRMzj4ZGe5xKi-T_5V+g@mail.gmail.com> <530B86F6.5040201@gmail.com> <CABrd9SSpyw4nJ9t7X0WDeN+1MnhD+__-QXLOQXYs=h2JCUrwDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwj4XniVS_n+M3TmT_LM+P6H6HGgcnhMezUjnupKXzwwdg@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9STabJA4Fp75HfC7ORR1LQZT+q0DDuB61O0JGBOt31cpmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgT8MEG+Svr3zmMYYPrQNEXwtNPL0m7CjYFHKUAKKbfFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9STQQ69cPo3F5c22__aGbPAKV3AXnTFB47yd3s7+SQOpww@mail.gmail.com> <530DD6BC.8080207@comodo.com> <CABrd9SSX9XFqQK+UBdvai-ACLkPT6mudXsjYmh-cGOp-P62vog@mail.gmail.com> <530DDF7D.4040206@comodo.com> <530DE176.9020401@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:46:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjfN5k82H384GN8-PCKOjfu4zmt+=fiAhAKiiXUV_Dy0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160bbe2d43ef604f34f6eb4"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/kgFMJsi0ltOLVPedrT9iYw9RWB4
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Trans] running code (was: Re: Draft agenda)
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, 26 Feb 2014 13:46:41 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:

>
> I'm not that keen on the phrase ritual compliance.
>
> There is a lot of PKI code in the world that assumes
> that issuer/serial is a unique identifier for a good
> X.509 certificate.
>
> It'd be best to not break such code by invalidating
> that assumption.
>
> If there's a good enough reason to do it, that might
> be ok, but I figure the burden to demonstrate that
> that is in fact ok should be on those arguing for such
> a change.
>

+1

A key ceremony is after all a ritual. And one of the social functions of
rituals is to ensure that process is followed correctly. So saying 'mere
ritual' is like saying 'mere semantics' when these are meaning.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email