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

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 11 June 2014 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 CA96B1A011E for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 eqeD1vcTi42G for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46FB61A010D for <wpkops@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:54986) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1WujUp-0002by-9w for wpkops@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <5398673F.30300@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:27:11 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: wpkops@ietf.org
References: <001901cf6ec2$376461b0$a62d2510$@digicert.com> <059501cf79f0$69ba9060$3d2fb120$@digicert.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607CC475E56@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
In-Reply-To: <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607CC475E56@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050600080300020902010705"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/yVl3g0UdfeRFSD-UYIIpnnLMzxA
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: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:27:22 -0000

+1

As some other have already said, the charter of the WG calls for 
documenting current
Web PKI practices, not describing what one might wish were true.

Steve
>
> Ben,
>
> I reviewed what I think is the latest draft at 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-wpkops-browser-processing-01, 
> not the Word doc attached to the previous message.
>
> Section 2.1: Is it worth pointing out that root stores are not fixed? 
> Not only can they be extended via automatic download (as you pointed 
> out), but enterprises can add and remove roots (as often happens in 
> Windows environments) and browser users can manually add or remove 
> roots or modify trust bits. Document readers may not be aware of those 
> other possibilities.
>
> Section 2.2: It might be helpful to readers to explain here why 
> Firefox does not do "AIA chasing". In other words, they don't see it 
> as a missing feature; they choose to fail on incomplete chains, and a 
> case can be made as to why this behavior is preferable to the behavior 
> of other browsers. Or do we just want to point out differences among 
> browsers without trying to explain why those differences exist (where 
> we understand why)?
>
> Section 3.1 The introduction says "This document reviews the current 
> processing behaviors...", but this Section is full of "should"s. I 
> suggest it needs to be rewritten to factually describe current behavior.
>
> Section 3.4 seems speculative and not descriptive of current browser 
> behavior.
>
> Section 3.5 Header is not in bold.
>
> Section 4.3 Shouldn't say "browsers should" ;^)
>
> -Rick
>
> *From:*wpkops [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:13 PM
> *To:* wpkops@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft
>
> Here is another draft with suggested changes from Santosh accepted, 
> and the addition of "Security Considerations" subsections, based on 
> our discussions of May 13^th .
>
> *From:*wpkops [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:44 AM
> *To:* wpkops@ietf.org <mailto:wpkops@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft
>
> Here is a first pass through the browser behavior document that I sent 
> to Robin and Santosh yesterday.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wpkops mailing list
> wpkops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops