Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #128 (rfc6962-bis): section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:45:34 -0000

#128: section 5 over-claims the properties of an STH

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Replying to [comment:4 david@…]:
 > Replying to [comment:3 rob.stradling@…]:
 > > Should we qualify the statement then?  e.g. something like...
 > > "This provides auditable evidence that the log kept all its observed
 promises."
 >
 > What do you mean by "observed promises"?

 I mean the SCTs that have been observed by an auditor that is auditing the
 "auditable evidence".
 But I concede that "all...observed" is unclear.  It could be taken to mean
 all SCTs that have been observed by anyone (rather than all SCTs observed
 by one particular auditor).

 > > Or could we just remove that entire sentence?
 >
 > That would be a simple way to address this.

 I've proposed that change here:
 https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/98

 > If you want to keep a similar statement though, you could take a look at
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-trans-architecture-01#section-3.6
 and describe STH generation's role in those 4 checks.

 I think that that level of detail of the auditing function would be out of
 place in a section that is intended to introduce log requirements.

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/128#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:28:38 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Fixed (sentence removed) at https://github.com/google/certificate-
 transparency-rfcs/commit/e8fa6d1428f05ebfec0867f3bc59c155fc11235e.

 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/128#comment:6>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:16:54 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/128#comment:7>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>