Subject: [Trans] new I-Ds

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:21:25 -0500

I'd like to bring three new -00 I-Ds to the attention the the WG. They are
requirements specs: Monitor and Auditor, (CT-aware) CA and Subject, and
browser and browser vendor. Each is brief, 10-11 pages, and easy to read.

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dseomn-trans-browsers/

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kent-trans-monitor-auditor/

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kseo-trans-ca-subject/

The CT architecture doc (version -01) also has been extensively revised,
and made shorter, and is a companion to the requirement specs noted above.

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kent-trans-architecture/

I think these docs provide a clear description of the CT system and
(a first cut) at requirements for the elements of that system (other than
the log). I suggest the WG consider adopting these docs and revising 
6962-bis
to become a description of the log and a requirements spec for it. That 
would
allow 6962-bis to be more focused, shorter, and hopefully, easier to read.

Happy turkey day (to those in the U.S.),

Steve

---

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 18:38:32 +0300

Dear Stephen,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dseomn-trans-browsers/
Does it make sense to specify behaviour for the case when some of SCTs 
delivered to the browser are incorrect (do not match the log key, the 
cert, etc)?

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky