Re: [wpkops] Browser behaviour draft

We could add a clear statement in the document that says, "this document describes the state of the Web PKI circa 2013" or something like that. -Original Message- From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Moses Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:42 AM To: Gervase Markham

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

ital signature verification depending on the TLS cipher suite selected. -Rick From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:13 PM To: wpkops@ietf.org Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft Here

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

ent browser behavior. Section 3.5 Header is not in bold. Section 4.3 Shouldn't say "browsers should" ;^) -Rick From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:13 PM To: wpkops@ietf.org Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

. -Mensaje original- De: Ben Wilson [mailto:b...@digicert.com] Enviado el: lunes, 09 de junio de 2014 18:24 Para: Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo; bruce.mor...@entrust.com CC: wpkops@ietf.org; g...@mozilla.org; tim.mo...@entrust.com Asunto: RE: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Dr

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente. -Mensaje original- De: Ben W

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

Iñigo and Bruce, Perhaps we should revise the Trust Model document to describe how browser, root store, and cryptolibrary are related? In addressing Gerv's comments, I am thinking of starting with the following "This document reviews the current processing behaviors of cryptolibraries, and the bro

Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Browser Behavior Draft

Thanks. I'll take a look and create another draft. -Original Message- From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Moses Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:19 AM To: Gervase Markham Cc: wpkops@ietf.org; b...@digicert.com Subject: Re: [wpkops] Preliminary Next Version of Brow

[wpkops] NIST 800-52

I think this is what was mentioned recently - http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-52r1 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops

[wpkops] Taxonomy of Browser Behaviors - "Hard Fail", "Soft Fail" and "Reload Request"

In working on the next version of the Certificate Processing document, I have come across two different uses of "hard fail." I am also concerned that use of the phrase, "soft fail," might encounter similar problems. Also I've seen "Retry" or "Reload" messages, which are hard fail, but with an o

[wpkops] New I-D on Browser Processing

Here is the first draft of the internet draft on browser processing (not including revocation processing) - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-wpkops-browser-processing/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ wpkops ma

Re: [wpkops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-barreira-trustmodel-00.txt

2013 18:55, Ben Wilson wrote: > I think the line is determined by balancing factors such as tone, > scope, complexity, detail, etc. Since this is the first step, I think > that section > 3.3.1 strikes a proper balance on introducing this concept, at this > point in the project. I

Re: [wpkops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-barreira-trustmodel-00.txt

er manufacturer responsible rather than the CA? Should we mention this in the spec? Where do you draw the line? regards David On 15/10/2013 18:06, Ben Wilson wrote: > Concerning " 3.3.1. Subscriber uses agent", David Chadwick wrote, "5. > What is the relevance of section 3.3.1?

Re: [wpkops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-barreira-trustmodel-00.txt

Concerning " 3.3.1. Subscriber uses agent", David Chadwick wrote, "5. What is the relevance of section 3.3.1? If a third party is subcontracted to a party to do work on its behalf, then the party is ultimately responsible for this and there is no need to mention it." David, I think it is helpful

[wpkops] ID:Browser processing of server certificates:Definitions

Some of us are working on an Internet Draft titled, "Browser processing of server certificates". Here are some draft definitions for terms that I think we'll be using: Bypassable error - A behavior in which the browser detects an abnormal condition and asks the user whether to proceed with (

Re: [wpkops] ID on Trust model

l On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ben Wilson wrote: > Definition of Root store – I think it should say, “a set of root > certificates embedded in a certificate-using client that anchors the > certificate chains of end entity certificates.” (This definition cold > go on to explain

[wpkops] ID on Trust model

Bruce, Iñigo and Karen, I recently reviewed your internet draft on Trust Model. I agree with some who have commented about the section on security considerations -- it seems it may open a Pandora’s Box of issues, considerations, etc. to be considered and discussed—books could be written if they

Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87

Thanks, Iñigo. I will not be able to attend the IETF 87 meeting in person, but I have an updated outline of the user agent behaviors that I have briefly summarized below. The purpose of the following summary is to explain in chronologic fashion the processing of an SSL certificate. The key re

[wpkops] Implementations of OCSP Stapling

Excuse the cross-posting, but if you know of anyone currently implementing OCSP stapling, could you send me their contact information off-list? Thanks in advance, Ben ___ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops

[wpkops] Spreadsheet on User Agent Behavior

Here is the link to the https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah4hAObl77LxdF9iQ0M5TUJ1MTlyWmo 4X2RSeklnSkE &usp=sharing I will back up the workbook every day or so. I've shared it "Anyon

Re: [wpkops] Web PKI - Trust Models

Here are some comments. From: wpkops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Morton Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:08 AM To: wpkops WG (wpkops@ietf.org) Subject: [wpkops] Web PKI - Trust Models Please find attached a draft of the Web PKI Trust Models documen

Re: [wpkops] wpkops agenda topics

Sharon, Jeremy Rowley and I from DigiCert will be working on documenting the certificate processing behavior of user agents, along with Robin Alden and Phill Hallam-Baker of Comodo. Jeremy will be in attendance and able to participate in the discussion. Thanks, Ben From: wpkops-boun...@ie

Re: [wpkops] Congrats!

Phillip, You and I should coordinate because I think some things that I am working on with Robin overlap. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: wpkops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:30 AM To: Ronald

Re: [wpkops] Second draft charter proposal

From: Jon Callas [mailto:joncal...@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:30 PM To: b...@digicert.com Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; Carl Wallace; wpkops@ietf.org Subject: Re: [wpkops] Second draft charter proposal On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:50, Ben Wilson wrote: > While I agree that it needs to be a

Re: [wpkops] Second draft charter proposal

While I agree that it needs to be addressed, I'm not sure I want to enlarge the scope when our success will depend on our ability to handle the workload and address and resolve the issues presented. -Original Message- From: wpkops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf

Re: [wpkops] First draft charter proposal

Tim, How do you envision that any previous or future work product of members of the CAB Forum on profile-type documents be integrated into the work of this group? Namely, in Section 9 of the Baseline Requirements there was some language about Issuer and Subject Identifiers, and then Appendices A