Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:36:27 -0000

#78: algorithm agility discussion is inadequate

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Merged in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/2c389f9240e95b8168b14f9e78afa633cf4b0ceb .

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/78#comment:10>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:43:39 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Text supplied by Steve Kent, in case the current changes are not enough:
 "
 The term "algorithm agility" refers to mechanism and procedures that
 enable
 use of different sets of algorithms within a protocol or system. It also
 often
 encompasses the transition from one set of cryptographic algorithms to
 another,
 in a fashion that avoids service disruption.

 All of the cryptographic algorithms defined for use with CT are
 represented as log metadata. None of these algorithms can be changed for
 an extant log. When a new log is created the log operator MUST specify all
 of the cryptographic algorithms as part of the metadata for that log.
 This metadata MUST be made available to all log clients. For TLS clients
 that are web browsers, CT relies on browser vendors to convey this
 metadata to the clients. For all other log clients, the means of
 disseminating log metadata is undefined.

 The set of cryptographic algorithms initially specified for CT (in RFC
 XXXX) will change
 over time. New, standard algorithms will be published as (standards track)
 RFCs. Log
 operators and clients will be required to support these algorithms (for
 new logs)
 during a time  frame specified by these RFCs.
 "

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/78#comment:11>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:56:09 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

-- 
--------------------------+-------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [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/78#comment:12>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>