Re: [Trans] Draft agenda

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>]

On 02/24/2014 04:25 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> As for relevance, right now therightkey is the best place
> for discussion of other approaches to fixing PKI, while trans
> is specifically for discussion of certificate transparency.
> The only thing that's in our charter at the moment is 6962bis.
> That doesn't mean that other applications of CT are out-of-
> scope, but that we'd need to recharter to take them on
> as work items.

I think you're saying you want the slot in London to focus on getting
the mechanism right, and not trying to propose policy, which is
completely reasonable.  I'm happy to stay focused.

There's nothing in RFC 6962 (and i hope there won't be in 6962bis) that
is HTTPS-specific, though; it's defined as a mechanism for logging X.509
certificates for use in TLS, regardless of the application layer traffic
within the TLS session.

So i hope that the use of CT in SMTP+STARTTLS isn't seen as an "other
application" -- it's still TLS.  If we suspect that CT is somehow valid
only for X.509 certs used by HTTPS servers, we should make that more
explicit in the draft (but i hope we don't!)

Regards,

	--dkg