Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft
"Ben Wilson" <ben@digicert.com> Mon, 09 June 2014 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@digicert.com>
X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785641A0264 for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 Qxo5yGMgzfNJ for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digicert.com (mail.digicert.com [64.78.193.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA341A01D0 for <wpkops@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BWILSONL1 (unknown [67.137.52.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digicert.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0A857FA126; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:24:29 -0600 (MDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=digicert.com; s=mail; t=1402331070; bh=RLM5y5WN0y9nU1uXcUrHJxr0pSOYdT6hjtikK6SbbRs=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=ohQfPNmtluVcbwPV13dhUfhXKx4DyO73qa9r+fVCcdn/vL3+OUJf2MyMAGh1S6b8+ knlEll+b5pIU8tkxDyYX6FLicJtouWUAVVXBf8eU1o7L3tLiFFxHLIT5QJzlnJwlsv RTy4XtevGtLLGtU6MeAaCoZSgHbm6fsoldADwnaM=
From: Ben Wilson <ben@digicert.com>
To: i-barreira@izenpe.net, bruce.morton@entrust.com
References: <001901cf6ec2$376461b0$a62d2510$@digicert.com> <059501cf79f0$69ba9060$3d2fb120$@digicert.com> <538F795F.3020008@mozilla.org> <5B68A271B9C97046963CB6A5B8D6F62CE819DE1D@SOTTEXCH11.corp.ad.entrust.com> <53907A4C.7070307@mozilla.org> <003701cf81b7$d0cb5ae0$726210a0$@digicert.com> <763539E260C37C46A0D6B340B5434C3B09939A2F@AEX06.ejsarea.net>
In-Reply-To: <763539E260C37C46A0D6B340B5434C3B09939A2F@AEX06.ejsarea.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:24:25 -0600
Message-ID: <007301cf83ff$4810e680$d832b380$@digicert.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHAGq9YUAUY845vOYYDLXX689oZPAIbE3NYATl0SmABw3ilUgIjEPfBAtMvZiMCR6D4R5slGUwg
Content-Language: en-us
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006F_01CF83CC.FB833200"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/9WjlV1FqqHUtHI54Fcqh3AlQuSM
Cc: wpkops@ietf.org, gerv@mozilla.org, tim.moses@entrust.com
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft
X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <wpkops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpkops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:24:33 -0000
Iñigo, Yes, the cryptolibraries are functional subcomponents of browsers, so they ought to be mentioned. Providing the functional introduction will lay the groundwork for technical background. I'll send you (or post to the IETF site) the next version of the working document on non-revocation behavior. Cheers, Ben -----Original Message----- From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of i-barreira@izenpe.net Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 2:29 AM To: ben@digicert.com; bruce.morton@entrust.com Cc: wpkops@ietf.org; gerv@mozilla.org; tim.moses@entrust.com Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft Hi Ben, The current text of the trust models document already identifies the way a browser and a root store provider work together but not the relation with the crypto libraries. I don´t understand your question exactly because I don´t see why these libraries are of interest for a trust model. Do you mean that a trust model can differ depending on which library is used? The trust model document is more on a "functional" view than a technical one. I need more clarification on what you think to be added Regards Iñigo Barreira Responsable del Área técnica i-barreira@izenpe.net 945067705 ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ! ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente. -----Mensaje original----- De: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben@digicert.com] Enviado el: viernes, 06 de junio de 2014 20:48 Para: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo; bruce.morton@entrust.com CC: wpkops@ietf.org; 'Gervase Markham'; 'Tim Moses' Asunto: RE: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft Iñigo and Bruce, Perhaps we should revise the Trust Model document to describe how browser, root store, and cryptolibrary are related? In addressing Gerv's comments, I am thinking of starting with the following "This document reviews the current processing behaviors of cryptolibraries, and the browsers they support, with respect to SSL/TLS session establishment between a server and a browser, ..." or something along those lines. Thoughts? Thanks, Ben >-----Original Message----- >From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gervase >Markham >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:10 AM >To: Tim Moses; ben@digicert.com >Cc: wpkops@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior >Draft > >On 05/06/14 14:37, Tim Moses wrote: >> Hi Ben. We want to move this document to WG draft status. Do you >> want to address Gerv's comments before we hold a ballot? I suggest >> we do that. > >Again, apologies for lack of knowledge of the process, but: the doc is >full of "to be expanded", > "we plan to..." etc. So there will be lots of further change. Is that > what "Draft" means? > >My two examples were two of many; they were actually given to try and >get clarity on the >purpose and goals of the document. If that's written up somewhere, do >point me to it. :-) > >Gerv > > _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
- [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Beha… Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … i-barreira
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Gervase Markham
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Tim Moses
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Gervase Markham
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Tim Moses
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Tim Moses
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … i-barreira
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … i-barreira
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … i-barreira
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Rick Andrews
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Stephen Kent
- Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser … Ben Wilson