Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>> As others have pointed out, the DNS already has the capability
>> to store certs. So you could use the DNS as a publication
>> method. But is this the only thing a PKI needs? How would
>> one revolke a cert that was in the DNS? How can you update
>
Keith Moore wrote:
>>>Nearly all of the major IETF security protocols (TLS, IPsec, OpenPGP)
>>>already have their own certificate discovery mechanism and therefore
>>>have no need to have certificates in the DNS. TLS, in particular,
>>>wouldn't know what to do with them if they were there.
>>
>>Th
On 1 January 2013 21:50, =JeffH wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here are some last call comments on draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-05.
>
> Overall the spec is in basically overall reasonable shape but I do have some
> substantive comments that if I'm not totally misunderstanding things (which
> could be the case) oug
On 14 January 2013 11:30, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> FYI. Some comments sent just to the IETF list. Please
> respond there.
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Certificate
> Transparency) to Experimental RFC
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:10:32 -0800
Apologies for responding to recent comments in random order: I'm
travelling and have accumulated something of a backlog.
On 22 January 2013 03:11, =JeffH wrote:
> apologies for latency, many meetings and a conference in the last couple of
> weeks.
>
> BenL replied:
>> On 1 January 2013 21:50, =Je
On 22 January 2013 21:44, =JeffH wrote:
>
>
3.1. Log Entries
Anyone can submit a certificate to any log. In order to enable
attribution of each logged certificate to its issuer, the log SHALL
publish a list of acceptable root certificates (this list might
On 28 January 2013 22:41, =JeffH wrote:
>> Apologies for responding to recent comments in random order: I'm
>> travelling and have accumulated something of a backlog.
>
> no worries :)
>
> thx again for your thoughts.
>
>
> BenL replied:
>> On 22 January 2013 03:11, =JeffH wrote:
>
>
- is
On 16 February 2013 10:22, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Sorry for the delay but I have been thinking of CT and in particular the
> issues of
>
> * Latency for the CA waiting for a notary server to respond
> * Business models for notary servers
>
> As a rule open source software works really well
On 17 February 2013 00:24, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>
>> On 16 February 2013 10:22, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> > Sorry for the delay but I have been thinking of CT and in particular the
>> >
On 21 September 2013 06:02, SM wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> At 21:54 19-09-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
>> concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
>> discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
10 matches
Mail list logo