IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ben Wilson" <ben@digicert.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 18:48 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 C514E1A0223 for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:48:01 -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 f5L1Io19HEOT for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digicert.com (mail.digicert.com [64.78.193.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB281A021E for <wpkops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:48:00 -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 2C1A98FA045; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:47:53 -0600 (MDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=digicert.com; s=mail; t=1402080473; bh=QMfyQ8/3z4+mmbhTF9BzjTtOI0k4b3JaK6t1QGmmM9g=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=F2dqaspi98I5FJkTFXlKDnKU++gLLekGwPIS/abr4P+es16fKL162SgFfnivySjAE jRvP6pkjpKV4MgyKG7jt0vm9NeY39sypHLVpnT/U91NmdKVFzmz5hEEwtnauTRjhXu YaE5xcctGkJr5uXxbYT8FrkJ619w6bNekLKOYcis=
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>
In-Reply-To: <53907A4C.7070307@mozilla.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:47:49 -0600
Message-ID: <003701cf81b7$d0cb5ae0$726210a0$@digicert.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHAGq9YUAUY845vOYYDLXX689oZPAIbE3NYATl0SmABw3ilUgIjEPfBm0lfIVA=
Content-Language: en-us
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01CF8185.85ADD830"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/rszX-YKqor4CTKx63UfS5qqTSTA
Cc: wpkops@ietf.org, 'Gervase Markham' <gerv@mozilla.org>, 'Tim Moses' <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: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:48:01 -0000

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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email