IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 25 November 2014 19:55 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 4C8351A87D5 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Dda3zyLYfB3C for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
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 E5A2F1A6EED for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:47949 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XtMDH-000DmX-CG; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:55:51 -0500
Message-ID: <5474DEB8.6040307@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:55:36 -0500
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: Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com>
References: <5436FC38.1070201@bbn.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607D2BA8687@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM> <93CB5AEA-4672-48D1-8477-DF5DE3D143CE@vigilsec.com> <547338AF.6010903@bbn.com> <CAMm+LwjONcSRk4TT+t4NoA9NKsDmr2UKPdQuJkKRH2=Duh3dmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjONcSRk4TT+t4NoA9NKsDmr2UKPdQuJkKRH2=Duh3dmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040008080305020209090002"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/lFEYT1hQ_xz4IIM6vOW0rR3ra5s
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Goals and generic mis-issuance fgramework
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: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:55:39 -0000

PHB,
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Stephen Kent<kent@bbn.com>  wrote:
>> Russ,
>> Nonetheless, I guess a client might choose to rely on cert validation by a
>> log, although
>> one should do so only if one has confidence that the log (or a set of logs
>> that all agree the
>> cert was valid) can do a better job than the client. Given experience with
>> some browsers, that
>> might not be a bad idea ;-).
> And so the TRANS notary becomes a trusted critical component rather
> than a transparent notary whose actions are completely constrained by
> the Harber-Stornetta block chain...
trusted by a client IF it elects to do so. as I said, given the 
performance of _some_ browsers, this is not necessarily a bad idea, and 
it would be up to the user to make this decision.

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email