Re: [Trans] Precertificate format

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 4153C1A88E4 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 x2ZeKKTYM3xj for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEBA1A88DD for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id lj1so6638472pab.29 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ETSrltHv23ihVfCKCGB1srURLbbOzmZ+tJB3nAG8aL4=; b=kyrIVP1n0OZQHp1LiUiDh/GCBEWBQThrSvYgAbRZvwEHKOMev0TczjiTSBJnM5onRx cIqwN/e5inFgI1rc6wS1BwovVYswDrzYw4WqbVFyB+oiihE6tMP+bvpCPLKdZNB3yq/A vRm85D/LXeiPTng3CBI17dhxq4tzX42p5aUp35HwW2Oztu6UHfzEBKIT6pmWR+SpTjd/ aIjmy3BXxuXfBMbRFfqWLCvF6OzI7lr+vUOPLCBg+ORmYQf+yoGs+fPyaSKCEgrlTKVk 3/V1bpa5WtlFIQSPrVnCC/c/5AQZYi6lqqTwuOa5MzyPLWFcJ17iTWqKXiImZ5Igt8m9 WwFw==
X-Received: by 10.68.95.196 with SMTP id dm4mr39578690pbb.95.1410365524279; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (69-161-3-58-rb2.sol.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [69.161.3.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f12sm15782080pat.36.2014.09.10.09.12.02 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54107851.8030906@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:12:01 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.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: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
References: <540DFA75.2040000@gmail.com><540ED39C.5040308@comodo.com> <CAFewVt7NivPuSzcUL=mM=6mKauznrcb+gPHgpw5myhfZUO-eEg@mail.gmail.com> <54102866.8070200@comodo.com>
In-Reply-To: <54102866.8070200@comodo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/uYf2ypsXJh8GjmlY05RaBELZXDk
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] 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: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:12:11 -0000

On 9/10/14 2:31 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> Chairs,

> Do we have the option of keeping the existing Precertificate format,
> such that once 6962-bis becomes a standards track RFC it would violate
> the serial number uniqueness rule in the RFC5280?
> Or, does the IETF process absolutely require that we don't violate any
> rules in existing standards track RFCs?

We do have the option of keeping the existing format and still see
6962-bis published as a standards-track document.  However, I would
expect that doing so would lead to an unpleasant working group last
call, an unpleasant IETF last call, and possibly an unpleasant IESG
review.  If there's a workable alternative on which we can get broad
(but not necessarily unanimous) agreement, let's do that.

Melinda