IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 31 March 2014 20:00 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 0FCCD1A6F6A for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, 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 FVD8wQOf9_AU for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652981A6F66 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:50456) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1WUiNb-000KNe-MF for trans@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:00:23 -0400
Message-ID: <5339C94F.9030001@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:00:15 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <r422Ps-1075i-50EDDACBA0064390A2CED9708B9D3E07@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local> <533986E8.6040201@bbn.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711FD90F03D@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CABrd9SS5d6De38tE-cxWBTopOh7vZhD3EHCW30rEzThj-g30-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SS5d6De38tE-cxWBTopOh7vZhD3EHCW30rEzThj-g30-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/myW8rx1M7pYt8-nmlsbae_rRYHs
Subject: Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.
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: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:00:22 -0000

Ben,

> On 31 March 2014 16:19, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>>>   But since we're talking about data from a TBS cert,since the generators of the data are CAs (who should know how to process ASN.1), and since the consumers of the data are browsers who already process certs, it seems reasonable to stick with ASN.1.
>> Adding another encoding makes things more complex.  Therefore, the simplest thing to do is use ASN.1
>>
>> It's like when you're editing someone else's source code: the best thing to do is preserve the existing style.
> As I just mention, its not actually another encoding - the data
> structure can also (ideally should also) be sent as a TLS extension,
> in which case ASN.1 is not the simplest thing to do.
Sorry if I misinterpreted the context. We need definitive statements 
about how each major
data element is transmitted, against what it is compared, and how it is 
generated.
Only then does it make sense to debate which encoding(s) make sense.

Steve

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status