Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

Hi Ben,

I´ll wait for your proposal but still don´t see it as a part of the trust model. The cryptolibraries are "something" the browsers use to perform their activities regarding the web PKI but IMHO are not related on how the browsers (or the OS) accept a CA in their root stores or how a CA adopt different options.
In any case, if this is important for the browser behavior document, as said, will wait for the proposal and see where this can be added to the trust model doc.

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: lunes, 09 de junio de 2014 18:24
Para: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo; bruce.morton@entrust.com
CC: wpkops@ietf.org; gerv@mozilla.org; tim.moses@entrust.com
Asunto: RE: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

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