Re: [Trans] Fwd: Precertificate format

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Tue, 21 October 2014 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.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 04CF01A6F62 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 yAXVOP-cmvtq for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14131A6F49 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id j7so834861qaq.16 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=zJ5ebU5OX+/8PEFw3Zv/hVru3rxuXWeTrRiUO+itq3s=; b=MIxfqy69isa+PWS7uuz6d/x++spu3CS5a5BAx+736GFCleaKh0pNAF2kUfhXUkmeJF jbB16NvIArmznReQBLZMWUBPnwUde/5NYnPWk8s7/MAWd7eAZxADETbLZIX00IF4dWPe USEZ8ywz3mf73rnHatrc2Odw9AVLGgX90Brdcols+yFbzGQeYid5hdMxkZH5991RVr4N AD3cEiSGjvegfSTHFTa4HM54ano9IP0gxMklj04ByvckBz4hHlmQsc1yq4gN3iojjwRZ VJ3ZKrILiuC9HijnDZIup7T08Bd5P9UUG0kFYOTf9v0Yt7aSeJiBAFmF2WLDwEo/jx07 x22w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=zJ5ebU5OX+/8PEFw3Zv/hVru3rxuXWeTrRiUO+itq3s=; b=d0OTITaREUIJemP+jZZRY4NHlr3m5lNyGv+lw/t20b1DOaflyzVNHFKDM6l1fiWxfx +lbQyuDXPOji3us+OlDSBfDOLVXvHfQgzJeGYWmob6mVIMm4Mf1sHaSyCzy827zxA1AJ gjIXUeeqyDcf8HNHg9EYH7SzvT4l7SYZbCcnXHDU3cZA4+0sg1BYu37cAoCGk3Ouv3um +VphaRBDAiioLAOkdQp6B3NLlkdoAHErvwfoPBa97T2ZPaH75n/Zq1/dbb8fMxay+3jH YrUH1F8wwbrW5jW23hBXTGJoDJN15A2seSpUGfmDwxfxpMg+xzxU4gt8zvooQTODnZxC GzPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkqFz+6HtwNqB2RS6jMHSQUB6xlHFh334aG1PSjkpP2d4KqccB9/dJh1fctf9Rwkra8d7v5
X-Received: by 10.140.31.139 with SMTP id f11mr22230916qgf.30.1413899478981; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABrd9ST-a64kDK82a-ATDW2JkuHZWbGfO0-Rmtgv5mbYrnwZPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+i=0E6v7-1zvs4XcbqE2pSGg7814=p2NbbPUaWjKT9BBBYeVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:51:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSeA0+ReqYtf-NtLj3okJ6G7VcyTKFRGo9Lv6FHfBb1_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erwann Abalea <eabalea@gmail.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a92083199970505ef204d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/nGNn8hZIW37U5RM65ZWTRvms8ok
Subject: Re: [Trans] Fwd: Precertificate format
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, 21 Oct 2014 13:52:42 -0000

On Mon Oct 20 2014 at 2:44:07 PM Erwann Abalea <eabalea@gmail.com> wrote:

> Discussion around the format happened in mid/late september, the idea of a
> CMS/PKCS#7 structure to hold the signature seems fine.
> Additional questions come in: is the new format intended to *replace* or
> *complement* the current one? If it's a replacement, what timeframe? CAs
> are already doing software modifications and deployment, please be nice :)
>

The proposal is to replace the current format.

In terms of timeframe, Google has not announced any plans to move to
6962-bis (and is not likely to before it becomes an RFC).