Re: [Trans] Fw: Re: WGLC started for draft-ietf-trans-threat-analysis

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Ryan,

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On May 21, 2018 2:40 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for the replies, Stephen.
>
> Given the disagreements in interpretation and application of 6962-bis, it sounds like this document should not progress until we've resolved those matters in 6962-bis. Does that sound like a reasonable path forward?

Yes, but I will post a new version of the threat doc with all of the changes I promised to make in my replies to David and Andrew.

> I don't feel comfortable that this document describes the running code, and I'm hesitant to believe we'll get rough consensus because of it, so that might be a worthwhile path forward here.

Unfortunately, 6962-bis completed WGLC over 6 months ago, so it had the consensus of the WG at that time, as determined by the chairs.

> Given the issues Andrew has pointed out, which I'm largely agreeing with or contextualizing, would you feel comfortable proposing changes to 6962-bis on areas you feel it disagrees with the feedback, or is that something that you would feel more confident if Andrew and I do? If they are accepted, would you feel comfortable making these changes to the threat document?

I proposed numerous changes to 6962-bis over a several year interval. A few were adopted but many were not, e.g., the definition of the Monitor function. 6962-bis never defined mis--issuance, not does it provide a concise characterization of the broad purpose of CT. I included these things in the threat analysis (and in some docs that were not adopted by the WG). If 6962-bis were revised to address these omissions, the threat analysis doc would be revised accordingly. But, you need to get the WG chairs and the cognizant AD (EKR) to agree to make such changes to 6962-bis at this very late stage.

> As it stands, I don't feel like the threat document is reflective of intent or practice, and that leaves me a bit concerned about its general utility for future readers.

The analyses in the threat doc are based primarily on what 6962-bis says re how CT will operate. Intent is not clearly stated in several areas and, from what you and Rob have said, it may not reflect practice either. But, those issues are for the authors of 6962-bis to address, not me.

Steve