From benl@google.com Fri Jul 19 04:18:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A714321E80B1 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yVFvCfAykasN for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2440821E80A6 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x12so9087558ief.40 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=AHlw3objY5X6Lbj8eD+3KDIDheBAg/+SRMRFaUznuXQ=; b=nRrbELn24HLXno4mrz8GKN78Px57zxRmsmjb913uEZxRB7eVId//pm7r9UsVEEE2Tk 7oasH5szOSJZG2s4pF+zoSjqMBtxoDWpeTJRvuJKU1oQxm5Rb4GJhrAZOW26LWffDzLR xFZtfw0ZFM7cVkykUE4OPcJo+cds9l0FI6T8MSWIi5BXyMyCKufrywpEihiH4tNcDXwH KKQGFKui3kGE9LT637EpIoYusq/nYvOTO4sl+fKflbn4dKay2a5yS6MuFNauJPnSvyYj Xwg6fEbgJwSDxZE+0Fhd7N7QrTf87vPZKdO53iRyOxb888gxGtlgTVe2eRh82bBB+7QI jQWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=AHlw3objY5X6Lbj8eD+3KDIDheBAg/+SRMRFaUznuXQ=; b=JjCVB49BCBneAVB0cCjkfNf7AiawIVziTvmD8htmKzT+JFCmBAWcD00JBwfHIBCwf3 5n4u3poXbIcWtIxg72L/sDnXFSI24i8Rb0rlebkc6FvtY5C8d0fXrnkPOejlnJyiuBAn uQfkEEFjux+FqmmGzZbT65/UKJP7hINpbtA7iSk760r/7LmHIhKOGODw4KPvjLZtZZGf h+u9mAdnSKPsOzzBToBMuZrh302UOPGnKHDJGO8tK3GxfwK5WJFqI8xm9OiWtkvMsqn+ eg4+vOA8HaBTUSVgBuaPHdYj+5wjRln9POsMyDP/WdNXOTsncUSTMCcwzPPOmQRP2i0L JHew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.78.16 with SMTP id zk16mr9735129icb.63.1374232689734; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.100.207 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:18:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:18:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ben Laurie To: "therightkey@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ffba3df4faaf004e1db7bcd X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEsxyyKw6gyMtSkwvjJYlUl9EZapBilBu5sHkq+7IHp4qiwpJTh1mI+EVXDvbQpOMDQmS62lZSr02ljNlWzoI2TE0yJXpCywORUzBVrIP8EvJrZgNvVIxAV/8NftlJ+15yHgSCEleBBaFCOe3fwBDyOPvNrk/unVGT5OK6puGct9fFdjzbuxw2Our4Jk3V5GVAD8U0 Subject: [therightkey] Fwd: Certificate Transparency Hack Day X-BeenThere: therightkey@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:18:10 -0000 --e89a8ffba3df4faaf004e1db7bcd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ben Laurie Date: 19 July 2013 11:33 Subject: Certificate Transparency Hack Day To: "tls@ietf.org" , IETF DANE WG list , certificate-transparency@googlegroups.com The Certificate Transparency team are considering hosting a hack day at Google's London office during the week of Aug 27-30 (Mon Aug 26 is a bank holiday). On the agenda would likely be: * log dashboard and data visualization * an appengine port of the dashboard * browser plugins * binary transparency * DNSSEC transparency * revocation transparency * anything else people find interesting If you'd be interested in attending such an event, please let Ben Laurie (benl@google.com) know and indicate any preference for which day. Thanks! --e89a8ffba3df4faaf004e1db7bcd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


---------- Forwarded me= ssage ----------
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>= ;
Date: 19 July 2013 11:33
Subject: Certificate Transparency Hack Day
T= o: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, IETF DANE WG list <dane@ietf.org>, certificate-transparency@googlegroups.c= om


The Certificate Transparency team are considering hosting a hack = day
at Google's London= office during the week of Aug 27-30 (Mon Aug 26 is
a bank holiday)= . On the agenda would likely be:

* log dashboard= and data visualization
* = an appengine port of the dashboard
* browser plugi= ns
* binary transparency
* DNSSEC transp= arency
* revocation transp= arency
* anything else= people find interesting

If you'd be in= terested in attending such an event, please let Ben
Laurie (= benl@google.com) know and indicate any preference for = which
day.

Thanks!

--e89a8ffba3df4faaf004e1db7bcd-- From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Fri Jul 26 05:40:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E0D21F93E4 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:40:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pjXKOOLwUbYa for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B2A21F922A for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8E8BE7B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:40:10 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b74EHLi+b-bb for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:40:05 +0100 (IST) Received: from [160.45.233.17] (e9-11.conference.fu-berlin.de [160.45.233.17]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99B6FBE68 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:40:05 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <51F26E24.7060409@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:40:04 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "therightkey@ietf.org" References: <20130726091056.DAD416210F@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20130726091056.DAD416210F@rfc-editor.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130726091056.DAD416210F@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040401010906030507020305" Subject: [therightkey] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) X-BeenThere: therightkey@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:40:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040401010906030507020305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any comments on this erratum? Thanks, S. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT) From: RFC Errata System To: benl@google.com, agl@google.com, ekasper@google.com, iesg@ietf.org CC: eranm@google.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6962, "Certificate Transparency". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6962&eid=3686 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Eran Messeri Section: 4.2 Original Text ------------- chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificates. The first element is the end-entity certificate; the second chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root certificate. Corrected Text -------------- chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificate and certificates. The first element is the end-entity precertificate; the second chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root certificate. Only the first element in the array may be a precertificate. Notes ----- The current description of Add PreCertChain implies the array may consist of multiple Precertificates. In practice it only makes sense for the first element to be a Precertificate, the following elements should be proper certificates. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6962 (draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-12) -------------------------------------- Title : Certificate Transparency Publication Date : June 2013 Author(s) : B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper Category : EXPERIMENTAL Source : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP Area : N/A Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG --------------040401010906030507020305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" --------------040401010906030507020305-- From leifj@mnt.se Fri Jul 26 06:21:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2D021F997D for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9EAaA71rIP1g for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4668821F9970 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 6so1151454bkj.31 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=BUaYutz9RyCcNXmPGuTL/28vtAtk1cRA5X+bcfvrhbI=; b=k2BpdqkSsdmMeZ/RgVNjakW0+ikmZ0SoUjypCv7DE+f+nBiSefOjA5npJiALbC0A7a Eujjj8Vx4pNpnfHoc4TGMkKOCoKGRJWGXW+FSlQtjoi8s/LvVcMhto4axqM5dncUNFzR gBCC9dIbmr+227m44vp+xXOMgVWe3YEII6z9tKUPpoPQQ/VFd+sIOoryKcrjEQTiJeq4 ZZP4byYezU9SKy2NoEhoeBFSKB0TGPQg/ARZ/2jdZ4In3hlqywC2JmWFvt7Aysnq8Efg yMV2BndBIacEBteMx9VDiFyyc1+BU893bdG5Z5JVOSI2YM8UobAto6ZJSjGGa/e5kNvN 7HPw== X-Received: by 10.204.184.199 with SMTP id cl7mr7198211bkb.77.1374844904564; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.27.14.227] ([195.37.142.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id px7sm12434346bkb.9.2013.07.26.06.21.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51F277E7.9070807@mnt.se> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:21:43 +0200 From: Leif Johansson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: therightkey@ietf.org References: <20130726091056.DAD416210F@rfc-editor.org> <51F26E24.7060409@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <51F26E24.7060409@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090002060803070105020503" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIMHdS3+2CjQcxPD1Uw+uQcg1EcHCY5ntx+Rn87A2uAJZgkk1IYeakDDVuK4cHWMuQu2q/ Subject: Re: [therightkey] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) X-BeenThere: therightkey@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:21:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090002060803070105020503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/26/2013 02:40 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Any comments on this erratum? If we are being anal about this I suppose it might be a good idea to clarify what "chains to" a precertificate means. > > Thanks, > S. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT) > From: RFC Errata System > To: benl@google.com, agl@google.com, ekasper@google.com, iesg@ietf.org > CC: eranm@google.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6962, > "Certificate Transparency". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6962&eid=3686 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Eran Messeri > > Section: 4.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificates. The first > element is the end-entity certificate; the second chains to the > first and so on to the last, which is either the root > certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root > certificate. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificate and certificates. > The first element is the end-entity precertificate; the second > chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the > root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root > certificate. Only the first element in the array may be > a precertificate. > > Notes > ----- > The current description of Add PreCertChain implies the array may > consist of multiple Precertificates. In practice it only makes sense > for the first element to be a Precertificate, the following elements > should be proper certificates. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6962 (draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-12) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Certificate Transparency > Publication Date : June 2013 > Author(s) : B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper > Category : EXPERIMENTAL > Source : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP > Area : N/A > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > therightkey@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey --------------090002060803070105020503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 07/26/2013 02:40 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Any comments on this erratum?

If we are being anal about this I suppose it might be a good idea
to clarify what "chains to" a precertificate means.

Thanks,
S.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: benl@google.com, agl@google.com, ekasper@google.com, iesg@ietf.org
CC: eranm@google.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6962,
"Certificate Transparency".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6962&eid=3686

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
chain:  An array of base64-encoded Precertificates.  The first
         element is the end-entity certificate; the second chains to the
         first and so on to the last, which is either the root
         certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root
         certificate.

Corrected Text
--------------
chain:  An array of base64-encoded Precertificate and certificates.
         The first element is the end-entity precertificate; the second
         chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the
         root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root
         certificate. Only the first element in the array may be
         a precertificate.

Notes
-----
The current description of Add PreCertChain implies the array may
consist of multiple Precertificates. In practice it only  makes sense
for the first element to be a Precertificate, the following elements
should be proper certificates.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6962 (draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Certificate Transparency
Publication Date    : June 2013
Author(s)           : B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper
Category            : EXPERIMENTAL
Source              : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area                : N/A
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG





_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
therightkey@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey

--------------090002060803070105020503-- From benl@google.com Mon Jul 29 09:30:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: therightkey@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B4721F9546 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7swY6y4Ud1D for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918FF21F9F6F for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o17so4377527oag.27 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:29:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yoQdWqpI4ah1KsykoxvZE58b4DUuluvbKun1jv40eL4=; b=Wgt1I3U9a1mKVBSRxhQLMp1HSxT3gpUOqky6cg0i+LvfbZWkYoX8+FsVIxMXIt6zqw Gh7iM/qDKSXYAUdNlekTHOfxqRYAS6ZDxeSvVl1d/uhOmHGfgCOJSFXfFKJdY16/bTt+ Bvmne0OFtWjyTQ28alaNbpU37+j5TB645o7unmGb6SWYEYhxlLtMXzD0UKHKPVPJ+e23 +Hf74CQ1XEjU0qdRX7Qk3ErXIZLxz2t8IGJ7zxCSy0bOuFU7n3TFdTmRx6a3nBJELQnP Dq2aBwBaABNSJVT0tv0gR7aIsLtZhToKqmYCBVBSBPhEVk5fpQFmA8stCU2/HEOXuEUz ngmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=yoQdWqpI4ah1KsykoxvZE58b4DUuluvbKun1jv40eL4=; b=Q5q2gfixV1K6k9dCCRegINGkBiyU5vCTIdjMsX1Ok6HSn8lR6fMePv1TLAUpICmZf5 aVVggmcZJXdaQex1MzRRbdf20VSdkmWk/rNb8GfuM/PVqvJjSJncsYfCMmQ8f2fnePbJ T5iNvZtTxw77mlG/peZAtpJVRBW0GQBqfsKeQTcXbKXdT3N9Dli7RL1EA+/cyCvnZwYW BbMbuxFAcsKMcpFKaxMK4GIoIw8Ft/qCHuYWv5GPBmT0F4slPVgVYOAvJXJhZDh1oYEK 7ScjjliF7EYnnbSIaUJExAcLYZ4bDxMBHqRJL2re4XnRbTWR+Taekvker24NPAAeMVMR B5gg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.47.66 with SMTP id ur2mr258794icb.17.1375115384802; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.230.239 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:29:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51F277E7.9070807@mnt.se> References: <20130726091056.DAD416210F@rfc-editor.org> <51F26E24.7060409@cs.tcd.ie> <51F277E7.9070807@mnt.se> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:29:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: Ben Laurie To: Leif Johansson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5299f15097d8804e2a9009d X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWiP5vLhqhXOFyV5+NQB2hFpZJSHRrzkNbNI2LTQ+ORho1U4XnW1xCVdIzCCx3eJpUSHwg4ukCF8sMPNunWQwcWZLc/ODHwlmsTiXPrbmrgTpOR8JSN/m2IfvM4uYxCRfaSDsqWdsgNpIUHK893uL0lqH68uBf1wZmbvzD/G9sNcj4QJvAfrvgCx9ZQcSduiXdK/T5 Cc: "therightkey@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [therightkey] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) X-BeenThere: therightkey@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:30:30 -0000 --bcaec5299f15097d8804e2a9009d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 26 July 2013 14:21, Leif Johansson wrote: > On 07/26/2013 02:40 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Any comments on this erratum? > > > If we are being anal about this I suppose it might be a good idea > to clarify what "chains to" a precertificate means. > It means the same as chaining to a certificate. :-) My only comment is the fix should perhaps make it clear that the leaf is a pre-cert and the remainder are standard certs... > Thanks, > S. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686) > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT) > From: RFC Errata System > To: benl@google.com, agl@google.com, ekasper@google.com, iesg@ietf.org > CC: eranm@google.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6962, > "Certificate Transparency". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at:http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6962&eid=3686 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Eran Messeri > > Section: 4.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificates. The first > element is the end-entity certificate; the second chains to the > first and so on to the last, which is either the root > certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root > certificate. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > chain: An array of base64-encoded Precertificate and certificates. > The first element is the end-entity precertificate; the second > chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the > root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root > certificate. Only the first element in the array may be > a precertificate. > > Notes > ----- > The current description of Add PreCertChain implies the array may > consist of multiple Precertificates. In practice it only makes sense > for the first element to be a Precertificate, the following elements > should be proper certificates. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6962 (draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-12) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Certificate Transparency > Publication Date : June 2013 > Author(s) : B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper > Category : EXPERIMENTAL > Source : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP > Area : N/A > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing listtherightkey@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey > > > > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > therightkey@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey > > --bcaec5299f15097d8804e2a9009d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 26 July 2013 14:21, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrot= e:
=20 =20 =20
On 07/26/2013 02:40 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Any comments on this erratum?

If we are being anal about this I suppose it might be a good idea
to clarify what "chains to" a precertificate means.
=

It means the same as chaining to a certifi= cate. :-)

My only comment is the fix should perhap= s make it clear that the leaf is a pre-cert and the remainder are standard = certs...
=A0
Thanks,
S.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6962 (3686)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: benl@google.com, agl@google.com, =
ekasper@google.com<=
/a>, iesg@ietf.org
CC: eranm@google.com<=
/a>, rfc-edi=
tor@rfc-editor.org

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6962,
"Certificate Transparency".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=
=3D6962&eid=3D3686

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
chain:  An array of base64-encoded Precertificates.  The first
         element is the end-entity certificate; the second chains to the
         first and so on to the last, which is either the root
         certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root
         certificate.

Corrected Text
--------------
chain:  An array of base64-encoded Precertificate and certificates.
         The first element is the end-entity precertificate; the second
         chains to the first and so on to the last, which is either the
         root certificate or a certificate that chains to a known root
         certificate. Only the first element in the array may be
         a precertificate.

Notes
-----
The current description of Add PreCertChain implies the array may
consist of multiple Precertificates. In practice it only  makes sense
for the first element to be a Precertificate, the following elements
should be proper certificates.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, plea=
se
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6962 (draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Certificate Transparency
Publication Date    : June 2013
Author(s)           : B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper
Category            : EXPERIMENTAL
Source              : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area                : N/A
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG





_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
therightkey@ietf.=
org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey


_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
therightkey@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey


--bcaec5299f15097d8804e2a9009d--