Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33

Go ahead, I didn’t hear any objection.

Paul

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 18:00, Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Still awaiting your feedback on this one.
> 
> From: Trans <trans-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
> Sent: 02 October 2019 19:44
> To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
> Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>; Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>; Trans <trans@ietf.org>; Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
> Subject: Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33
>  
> Paul,
> 
> Does https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/314 address your concern?
> 
> May I go ahead and merge this PR?
> 
> (It's still not clear to me what the 6962-bis authors can or can't do at this point in the editing cycle).
> 
> From: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>
> Sent: 25 September 2019 17:11
> To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
> Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>; Trans <trans@ietf.org>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
> Subject: Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33
>  
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 12:16 PM Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> wrote:
> On 24/09/2019 18:38, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Andrew Ayer wrote:
> > 
> >>> While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few
> >>> more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go
> >>> ahead and make this change.
> >>
> >> I'm also not sure what "this change" would be, but I agree with the
> >> other comments here that CT shouldn't provide a mechanism for logs to
> >> change URL.
> > 
> > I meant the clarification text of Base URL change (verus a potential
> > other consensus of text that would allow updating the base url)
> > 
> > I'm not sure what the policy is for declaring a registry append only.
> > Maybe leave a comment in for IANA whether or not that needs text?
> 
> In -33, section 10.6.1 says:
>    "Each application for the allocation of a Log ID MUST be accompanied
>     by:
>       - the Log's Base URL (see Section 4.1).
>       - a Contact (including contact information), from whom further
>         information can be obtained.
>       - an Owner (including contact information), who is authorized to
>         change this Log ID allocation."
> 
> I think we should fold "Owner" and "Contact" into just one field named 
> "Log Operator", and clarify that the only part of a Log ID Registry 
> entry that can be updated is the log operator's contact information.
> 
> Also, given that log operators are permitted to allocate Log IDs from 
> other OID arcs (see section 4.4), ISTM that we also need to update 
> section 4.1 to say that a log's Base URL is immutable.
> 
> Furthermore, ISTM that it would help to be explicit about the 
> immutability of each and every log parameter.
> 
> Here's a PR that attempts to resolve all of the above:
> https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/314
> I agree with Rob and Ryan's stance - as demonstrated with 6962 deployment, client agility would address the issue of logs wanting to change their URLs (and I do not recall an occasion where having the ability to change just the log URL would have been  helpful).
>  
> 
> 
> > Or alternatively, in the text for the Expert Review, mention the
> > registry is strictly append-only ?
> 
> There is no Expert Review text relating to the Log ID Registry.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> Sectigo Limited
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans