IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] RFC 7320 and draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-24

Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <eranm@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9C112E85E for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 03:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 SHNECGT_ff-U for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 03:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E91C512E872 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 03:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f102so17066200ioi.2 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 May 2017 03:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kQpbX7vEQPETZka0J+ZnM4ziJkWGtqmP1xL6S2EuXP8=; b=no76PqI4DciVVADGS/KAh7Kx3ihDa7Zy7xb22/V/d6LjpxNz8ang1rV44PMWENETOB 7gi76tb5W9o0DVZLj6MuNOg02Hd4giL8KqfOFw5uHsh2oOGaOcamBjrLR+Scmv3jDbol pCHIwWGZyrktoGVgubGhJuZgL68kmDQ+BS1/wMkWiImRGX2F5faIqgBXzyMcnzAdYtvg wzhtxTaAeMN9VJlt9sIxwrcZZWmW+FpNg3bEEe4JMPEBVMI76ZFx93TXoOSRhw6/0Oxn DdRB3eIpOfUcdE1FFCGyArQELRwicIkF//15eceZGc/zOZGMJ4hAUnxu2LjV4s59FHW9 rNUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kQpbX7vEQPETZka0J+ZnM4ziJkWGtqmP1xL6S2EuXP8=; b=EB8SD0YgOKbDOckKi9+jhjNVVUZu6Tu2I7ObluerwyDmxuNpT/kV+6W0rm1WqKG+C/ TIwo6klZlHeo0qI8VBjADqdIeOUfs9NCQ8TT/wUDm67zXEcOSIkyvxr6y71zyTS62UR1 PWz8vTJai92mIcd/QXgURfft1ySqtcByQE/URCh30Oex8y2/sB7oBlnpwQ3Vw0VkO20M oiVO3SEmKXwAMzblIbUFURJVMANUV+2gbvT+4ZqC9I5H6NEteQHQ/1+iNFzhtFHJ6j3l bbAEJWB01ppObUekYE5nxR0dEwMMPo+WST+DpdL9A2xP+AzTzkwqcSJ6eUVLixzIqGOW hgPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/73SL8Y+84OAQW2Y2r5RlkaqVU37DBnpIY7LowDaSAhpu0yV52x A/TriP3tlLN+5tgSct+APgbguf3m1E31
X-Received: by 10.107.133.106 with SMTP id h103mr11981378iod.230.1493894708188; Thu, 04 May 2017 03:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.47.41 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2017 03:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ad3f9f73-5daa-4f9c-1fe1-a5da6c8886a9@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnUescLZ-s0a+TGEhpcHH6E1i=1HhGTRhj8mKa=0q9TkHA@mail.gmail.com> <0f1433b8-84a7-754c-6463-ee73808abf9e@gmail.com> <CALzYgEdiin67qaUFz6vnjz=kv-igyV_Ld-RN1SnnKnrmTJvk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CALzYgEeiOV9q0sk3ooPGBUW1cQGtOVdgPAy8biVMsU6_uOqg0A@mail.gmail.com> <ad3f9f73-5daa-4f9c-1fe1-a5da6c8886a9@gmail.com>
From: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 11:44:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CALzYgEf8s_CDxznwwJ285RZPKfdn17BX5OMQqkKRuULyO-5WxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ff9a66a4624054eb07770"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/nySgckE8DRDrlhvdtPM7EAjHykg>
Subject: Re: [Trans] RFC 7320 and draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-24
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 May 2017 10:45:14 -0000

In line with the suggestion on this thread, I propose adopting Richard
Barnes's PR for documenting the reasoning behind deviating from BCP 190:
https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/249 (which
contains Richard's original commit and a small follow-up fix).

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/7/17 1:05 AM, Eran Messeri wrote:
> > Instead, we could:
> > (1) Clarify why BCP 190 may not apply here (based on experience
> > deploying V1 logs)
> > (2) Remove the 'ct/v2' portion from all the URIs.
> >
> > Any preferences? Mine would be for (2), but it's not a strong preference.
>
> I think that in general, when there's a deviation from a BCP
> it's a good idea to document why it's inapplicable - the question
> is very likely to come up at some point during the review process.
> I don't think that removing the ct/v2 portion would be sufficient to
> resolve the conflict with BCP 190, although it may be
> desirable for other reasons.
>
> Melinda
>
>
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status