Informational RFCs that detail shortcomings of technology exist - see, e.g., the work done in the UTA WG (disclaimer: I am an co-author of one such RFC).
Calling for specific mechanisms or forums is indeed odd. I'd suggest to rather go for a list of pointers instead. Ralph On 8 July 2015 at 05:36, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.row...@digicert.com> wrote: > This paper sounds like a wish list of select issues taken from the Mozilla > forums. I don't see why it would be published as informational RFC? Is the > goal to make a list of issues that community members feel need to be > discussed? I don't get it. > > The conclusions seem to be 1) Have a CAB Forum that is more transparent > (which is out of scope of the IEFT - I'm not sure I've ever seen an IETF > paper specifically call out to another industry body requesting a change in > its membership?) and 2) Use Let's Encrypt - one specific member of the CA > community. Many CAs already offer free tools to automate issuance, making > the call out to Let's Encrypt very odd in an IETF document, especially > where the touted feature - new automated tools - already exist ( > https://www.digicert.com/express-install/). I have a similar complaint > about the reference to acme where PHB has been proposing something similar > for a LONG time ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-omnibroker-06). > > I'm also not sure why you selected the specific issues for inclusion in > the paper. For example, the paper doesn't mention inconsistencies in > validation levels, which (imo) is a bigger issue than the "too big to fail" > scenario. Cost also is a weird issue to include in the document since it's > always relative. It's also very difficult to discuss without running afoul > of anti-trust laws. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wpkops [mailto:wpkops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 8:57 AM > To: wpkops@ietf.org > Subject: [wpkops] draft-housley-web-pki-problems-00 > > I want to make people on this list aware of this draft that was posted > yesterday. > > Stephen Farrell suggested that this list might be a good place to discuss > it. > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > wpkops mailing list > wpkops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops > > _______________________________________________ > wpkops mailing list > wpkops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops >
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
