Subject: [Trans] restarting WGLC for 6962-bis (draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-23)

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:28:07 -0500 (EST)

Since the last (second) WGLC of the 6962bis document, a number of
changes were made that although relatively contained, caused a
non-trivial amount of change in the document. It mostly relates
to the IANA registries and a further removal of text related to
redaction that is moving into a separate document. We still thought
it best to restart a WGLC for this.

Draft location:

 	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-23

Diff from previous WGLC version:

       https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-19&url2=draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-23

This starts a new WGLC for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-23 for three
weeks. The WGLC closes on January 11, 2017.

Please send feedback to the list, even (especially) if you sent feedback
on the previous WGLC.

Paul & Melinda

---

From: Tom Ritter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:44:08 -0600

On 21 December 2016 at 13:28, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

-bis defines "Monitors watch logs to check that they behave correctly,
for certificates of interest, or both."

In my mind, I I thought in many others minds, this definition is split:
A 'Monitor' which provides user notification of certificates of interest.
An 'Auditor' does log consistency checking.

Monitors are therefore public-facing (for some definition of public,
it might be paid subscribers for example), while auditors are not
necessarily so. In the Gossip draft, one can run an auditor that
exposes a public interface for submissions, or one can run a fully
private auditor that polls servers to collect data.

If others agree with me, I can provide text suggestions splitting the
two definitions again.

-tom

---

From: Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:19:27 +0000

> If others agree with me, I can provide text suggestions splitting the

Digging up some old tickets that seem relevant...

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/trans/ticket/65

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/trans/ticket/118

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online

---

From: Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:13:08 +0000

Eran, I don't know what happened to your toolchain when you generated 
-23, but I just noticed that the names of the authors at the top of the 
document have disappeared.  This didn't happen when you generated -21 
last month.  I can't reproduce this problem locally.

On 21/12/16 19:28, Paul Wouters wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>

---

From: Eran Messeri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:32:48 +0000

Seems like RFC generation on my Mac is broken. I've re-generated it on my
desktop, uploading a new draft now.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Eran, I don't know what happened to your toolchain when you generated -23,
> but I just noticed that the names of the authors at the top of the document
> have disappeared.  This didn't happen when you generated -21 last month.  I
> can't reproduce this problem locally.
>
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-b
>> is-19&url2=draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-23
>>
>>