Subject: [Trans] Starting to think about IETF 90

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:47:45 -0800

With IETF 90 lurching into view many of you are starting to
think about how to get time on the agenda in Toronto.
This is a reminder that the purpose of meetings is face-to-face
discussion of issues that haven't been able to make progress on the
mailing list, and to progress deliverables.  The IETF is somewhat
different from other standards bodies in that meeting time is generally
not used for presentation of new material, and that the work of the
organization is primarily done via working group mailing lists.  The
most reliable way to get time on a meeting agenda is to have a lively
discussion on the mailing list prior to the meeting.

So, if you've got a document that you're trying to progress,
now's a very good time to post to the mailing list with a
pointer to the document, a quick summary of what you're
trying to do, and what you think the open issues are or
areas that need discussion.

Thanks!

Melinda & Paul

---

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:36:10 +0400

Hello Melinda,

> areas that need discussion.

Unfortunately, I will not be present in Toronto.
So I think there are the following problems that are the subject to solve
for putting the CT into real world.

1. The behaviour of CT-supporting clients is underspecified. There are a
lot of corner cases that should be a subject for clarification. I have sent
the draft of my vision mixed with mostly Ben’s answers about the client
behaviour to the Trans list some time ago. As there is no objections or
agreements, I think that my suggestions should be either ignored and
replaced by a specification written from scratch or adopted as a part of
RFC after discussion.
Also the absence of the gossip protocol description disturbs me too.

2. There is a lack of understanding of infrastructure which is necessary
for the deployment of CT. If we get a hundred of logs, it is not better
than a hundred of CAs we have now. If we found a misbehaviour of log or of
a CA, it should be reported to - where? As far as I understand, this is out
of scope for IETF, but who will establish the rules here?

The adoption of the CT to operate together with DNSSec seems to be a
separate topic and I think, there should be a separate document covering it.

Thank you!
-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:13:45 -0800

> separate topic and I think, there should be a separate document covering it.

The best way to make that happen is to write one yourself -
that will start a discussion.  Writing an internet draft should
not be seen as a big deal - they are by their nature not mature
documents, and it's fine to put something out there that's
very rough around the edges.

We have requested Meetecho support for remote participants.

Melinda

---

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 23:43:24 +0400

Hello Melinda,

> very rough around the edges.

Well, I'm not the person who can write such a draft because I do not
understand how we can improve security this way.

Thank you!

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky