Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #65 (rfc6962-bis): remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:39:46 -0000

#65: remove section 5.4 and reference to "Auditor" in section 3

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 The editors never believed that audit would necessarily be performed by a
 standalone entity, that doesn't seem relevant.

 In any case, this has been clarified by talking about "auditing" rather
 than "auditor".

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  critical     |   Milestone:  review
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/65#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:03:35 -0400

Irrespective of whether auditing is a function or a stand alone entity, 
there
is a need for a complete description of how it works. The authors seem 
to have
a different view from a proposal presented by DKG at the last meeting, 
in terms
of the communication paths involved in auditing. That proposal 
emphasized privacy
for TLS clients, and thus it merits further discussion. So, at this 
time, it seems
premature to declare the design of auditing done. I suggest 6269-bis 
limit its
discussion of auditing to noting which log interfaces are used to 
support the function,
and assume that a separate doc will specify how auditing is performed.

Steve

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:08:19 +0000

DKG emphasizing privacy?  Imagine that :)

> Irrespective of whether auditing is a function or a stand alone entity, there is
> a need for a complete description of how it works. The authors seem to have
> a different view from a proposal presented by DKG at the last meeting, in
> terms of the communication paths involved in auditing. That proposal
> emphasized privacy for TLS clients, and thus it merits further discussion. So,
> at this time, it seems premature to declare the design of auditing done. I
> suggest 6269-bis limit its discussion of auditing to noting which log interfaces
> are used to support the function, and assume that a separate doc will specify
> how auditing is performed.

I agree with this!

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:25:27 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  critical     |   Milestone:  review
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/65#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>