From samer.wazan@telecom-sudparis.eu Wed May 8 05:44:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C6821F9322 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=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 6xInIKBsA-8B for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr (zproxy110.enst.fr [137.194.52.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADB221F9305 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12034230AC; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:44:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy110.enst.fr Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uoUgb1r7Phh2; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:44:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.41.51.19] (unknown [78.250.139.64]) by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B907E2307E; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:44:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <518A48B6.7020802@telecom-sudparis.eu> Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 14:44:38 +0200 From: Samer Wazan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wpkops@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080609080901000301080409" Subject: [wpkops] propositions to your WG X-BeenThere: wpkops@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: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:47:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080609080901000301080409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear members, After preliminary discussions with Tim Moses and Sharon Boeyen, we were asked to send our ideas through the mail list of the WG. Hopefully, that would be useful for the WG. By reading the charter of your WG, we realize that the objective is to describe how things are today with Web PKIs, and this from the perspectives of relying parties, certificate holders, CAs and browsers. We have checked also your latest Trust models of the Web PKI draft (draft-moses-webpki-trustmodel-00). In our view, describing how things are today can be done at two levels: ·Trust level: at this level the WG can bring answers to different questions: oWhat is the main conceptual trust model in the Web and why it is different from the one in the closed PKI deployment model? The current version of the draft gives only different instances of that model without any further explanation. In previous research works, we have clarified this issue by introducing a new trust model called the "four cornered trust model". In this model we have introduced a new role called the "Trust Broker" who will help RPs to make informed decisions about certificates. Our proposal has been accepted in the working draft of the standard X.509. oWhat does it mean the concepts of Trust, Trust in CAs and Trust in a Certificate? oHow different countries regularize their PKIs (i.e. exclusive governmental CAs or commercial CAs or both of them) oWhat are the different policies adopted by web browsers to include CAs in their list? oWhat is the liability of web browsers to RPs concerning the recommendations they provide to RPs? ·Technical level: this concerns principally the certificate validation process of Web browsers. In 2008, we have made a study that has identified the differences between browsers about that issue. We have shown that web browsers have different behaviors for the same certificate. We have given also the main reasons for this issue. For more information you can read this paper (/Which Web Browsers Process SSL Certificates in a Standardized Way?/ In : /IFIP TC-11 International Information Security Conference (IFIP SEC 2009)/, /Cyprus/, /18/05/09-20/05/09)./ We are looking forward to hear your comments. Best Regards Samer Wazan --------------080609080901000301080409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear members,

After preliminary discussions with Tim Moses and Sharon Boeyen, we were asked to send our ideas through the mail list of the WG. Hopefully, that would be useful for the WG.

By reading the charter of your WG, we realize that the objective is to describe how things are today with Web PKIs, and this from the perspectives of relying parties, certificate holders, CAs and browsers. We have checked also your latest Trust models of the Web PKI draft (draft-moses-webpki-trustmodel-00).

In our view, describing how things are today can be done at two levels:

·        Trust level: at this level the WG can bring answers to different questions:

o   What is the main conceptual trust model in the Web and why it is different from the one in the closed PKI deployment model? The current version of the draft gives only different instances of that model without any further explanation. In previous research works, we have clarified this issue by introducing a new trust model called the “four cornered trust model”. In this model we have introduced a new role called the “Trust Broker” who will help RPs to make informed decisions about certificates. Our proposal has been accepted in the working draft of the standard X.509.

o   What does it mean the concepts of Trust, Trust in CAs and Trust in a Certificate?

o   How different countries regularize their PKIs (i.e. exclusive governmental CAs or commercial CAs or both of them)

o   What are the different policies adopted by web browsers to include CAs in their list?

o   What is the liability of web browsers to RPs concerning the recommendations they provide to RPs?

·        Technical level: this concerns principally the certificate validation process of Web browsers. In 2008, we have made a study that has identified the differences between browsers about that issue. We have shown that web browsers have different behaviors for the same certificate. We have given also the main reasons for this issue. For more information you can read this paper (Which Web Browsers Process SSL Certificates in a Standardized Way? In : IFIP TC-11 International Information Security Conference (IFIP SEC 2009), Cyprus, 18/05/09-20/05/09).

We are looking forward to hear your comments.

Best Regards

Samer Wazan

--------------080609080901000301080409-- From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Mon May 13 12:28:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED5B21F949D for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 EryavwHoYIiT for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B63721F9409 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EE8BE54 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:27:46 +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 xLuHZIUFzMrO for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:27:44 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.44.67.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10B51BE56 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 20:27:44 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <51913EAF.4090106@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 20:27:43 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'wpkops@ietf.org'" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [wpkops] Fwd: [pkix] A well-researched article on use of CRLs in browsers X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 13 May 2013 19:28:15 -0000 Seems relevant here. S -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [pkix] A well-researched article on use of CRLs in browsers Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:08:26 -0700 From: Paul Hoffman To: pkix@ietf.org PKIX http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate-revocation-doesnt-work-in-practice.html The Netcraft folks are well-known for their research and non-flamingness. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ pkix mailing list pkix@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix From hallam@gmail.com Mon May 13 12:45:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DE621F923C for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5hMk-VHaKpgF for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E448F21F8D71 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hn14so983288wib.1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=W2ZODZDZ7GieXW3+Wqww4bi6zlWFXYbCI6QQdteYIOc=; b=YQ0p7uRws8ZJe5DXNQlib3QOjZ/wdNjivuxUx2gtLwcKouTNf0LyeOyT+6hzaq64kd jMmyP6mszBN3+RXgxxmHlEhgsXnH5G+H9adMfPN/Bn+c3SoVxM7sa274ueHII8Mx3VmH vvUt0SSA26BhCbniwoZkQRgqH/+R3J8+iOTLJGD+TlvwiZwXqZZY1JAOg1jmt22yfm9q xDZDcf6bE9CJP2f6nGkR97jNLCINJYXV+htICzbNYMZavd9c9t9whhWkEljfZ/q0KZxk vayhWDe/Q2o5olPTeQG81mOrdBD7sykJE9baRKTx5WlVdwEZV65oDgW5kHVYx/hsC613 4Ung== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.73.228 with SMTP id o4mr21841866wiv.12.1368474299411; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.162.8 with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51913EAF.4090106@cs.tcd.ie> References: <51913EAF.4090106@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:44:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043893cd8037f804dc9ec05e Cc: "wpkops@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [wpkops] Fwd: [pkix] A well-researched article on use of CRLs in browsers X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 13 May 2013 19:45:06 -0000 --f46d043893cd8037f804dc9ec05e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I am all confused about the article. Who is the RSA Inc. in this case? Who is Valicert? Who is Network Associates? Last I heard all three of those companies no longer exist in their original form and the result is very confusing. Especially since VeriSign used to operate an RSA root. Presumably what is going on here is that McAfee bought a CA platform from RSA back when McAfee was still Network Associates and RSA issued a cert for it through some sort of hook up to the Valicert root. But I would prefer not to presume... On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Seems relevant here. > > S > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [pkix] A well-researched article on use of CRLs in browsers > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:08:26 -0700 > From: Paul Hoffman > To: pkix@ietf.org PKIX > > > http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate-revocation-doesnt-work-in-practice.html > > The Netcraft folks are well-known for their research and non-flamingness. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > pkix mailing list > pkix@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix > > > > _______________________________________________ > wpkops mailing list > wpkops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --f46d043893cd8037f804dc9ec05e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am all confused about the article.

Who is the RSA Inc. in this case?
Who is Valicert?
Who is Network Associates?

Last I heard all three of those companies no longer exist in their original= form and the result is very confusing. Especially since VeriSign used to o= perate an RSA root.

Presumably what is= going on here is that McAfee bought a CA platform from RSA back when McAfe= e was still Network Associates and RSA issued a cert for it through some so= rt of hook up to the Valicert root.=A0

But I would prefer not to presume...
<= div style>


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Farrell <ste= phen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

Seems relevant here.

S


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pkix] A well-researched article on use of CRLs in browsers
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:08:26 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffma= n@vpnc.org>
To: pkix@ietf.org PKIX <pkix@ietf.org>

http://news.netcraf= t.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate-revocation-doesnt-work-in-practic= e.html

The Netcraft folks are well-known for their research and non-flamingness.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
pkix@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix



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



--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--f46d043893cd8037f804dc9ec05e-- From jeremy.rowley@digicert.com Fri May 31 08:53:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6DC21F96E8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 08:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 SBXeTGIecoBi for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 08:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.digicert.com (mail.digicert.com [64.78.193.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125F021F8E12 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 08:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JROWLEYL1 (unknown [64.78.193.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digicert.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A924B66601D for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:53:29 -0600 (MDT) From: "Jeremy Rowley" To: "wpkops WG" Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:53:52 -0600 Organization: DigiCert Message-ID: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0736_01CE5DE4.C1F4DDE0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5eFBP+zMDMaky/TkeQ46s/0NZtjA== Content-Language: en-us Subject: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:53:43 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0736_01CE5DE4.C1F4DDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IETF 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whether you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an update. If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you are on your project. Thanks, Jeremy ------=_NextPart_000_0736_01CE5DE4.C1F4DDE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Please = email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org= with your agenda items for IETF 87 in Berlin.  Also, if you = are a document editor, please let us know whether you are attending the = meeting and whether you plan to present an update.  If you are not = attending, please provide a status update on where you are on your = project.

 

Thanks,

Jeremy

------=_NextPart_000_0736_01CE5DE4.C1F4DDE0-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri May 31 09:28:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A17A21F86F5 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 aFCORgsSAeIM for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9229F21F86F0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-173.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4VGSGsc011284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 31 May 2013 09:28:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:28:17 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: wpkops WG Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 31 May 2013 16:28:21 -0000 On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley = wrote: > Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for = IETF 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us = know whether you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to = present an update. If you are not attending, please provide a status = update on where you are on your project. The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of = the documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally = used for discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, = but the WG still has no documents published (and essentially no = discussion on the list). Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will = any of the WG documents be published before then? And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It = doesn't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in = them. --Paul Hoffman= From jeremy.rowley@digicert.com Fri May 31 09:48:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9645C21F93F8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 JiSOtpxpAzNT for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.digicert.com (mail.digicert.com [64.78.193.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D1A21F938E for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JROWLEYL1 (unknown [64.78.193.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digicert.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62FDF7FC0DA; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:47:56 -0600 (MDT) From: "Jeremy Rowley" To: "'Paul Hoffman'" References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:48:19 -0600 Organization: DigiCert Message-ID: <07bd01ce5e1e$a7aa51b0$f6fef510$@digicert.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGXRqs2ttl2afARiZxJskoic5KFNAL+lb7nmXW6rdA= Content-Language: en-us Cc: 'wpkops WG' Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:48:04 -0000 Yes - Bruce Morton's Trust Model document should be published by then. Hopefully his document will inspire an increase of discussion and provide a good reason for the face-to-face meeting. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:28 AM To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com Cc: wpkops WG Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IETF 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whether you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an update. If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you are on your project. The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of the documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally used for discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, but the WG still has no documents published (and essentially no discussion on the list). Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will any of the WG documents be published before then? And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It doesn't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in them. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops From bruce.morton@entrust.com Fri May 31 09:59:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E9821F91CA for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 lr52WGyw-UuM for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipedge1.entrust.com (ipedge1.entrust.com [216.191.252.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A834821F852D for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,780,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="9099637" Received: from unknown (HELO sottexchcas.corp.ad.entrust.com) ([10.4.51.93]) by ipedge1.entrust.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2013 12:59:38 -0400 Received: from SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com ([fe80::389b:f45b:7ea1:79b7]) by sottexchcas1.corp.ad.entrust.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:59:38 -0400 From: Bruce Morton To: Paul Hoffman , "jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" Thread-Topic: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 Thread-Index: Ac5eFBP+zMDMaky/TkeQ46s/0NZtjAAKU36AAAfo5eA= Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:59:37 +0000 Message-ID: <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.137.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: wpkops WG , =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo_Barreira_=28i-barreira=40izenpe=2Enet=29?= Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 31 May 2013 16:59:43 -0000 I=F1igo and I are working on a draft of the Trust Model document. I am not = sure that we will have time to get it prepared to a state that it will be a= ble to be published in the appropriate lead time before the Berlin meeting. I will not be able to attend the Berlin meeting, but I=F1igo is seeing if h= e can make it. I tend to agree with Paul that if the document has not been circulated and = there are no issues raised, then it will be difficult to have agenda items = for a meeting. Bruce. -----Original Message----- From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Paul Hoffman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:28 PM To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com Cc: wpkops WG Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley wro= te: > Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IETF= 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whet= her you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an update= . If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you ar= e on your project. The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of th= e documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally used f= or discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, but the W= G still has no documents published (and essentially no discussion on the li= st). Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will any= of the WG documents be published before then? And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It does= n't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in them. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops From joelja@bogus.com Fri May 31 10:04:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC24F21F957B for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ZeHmfDUkfabb for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D5521F93F8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (host-64-47-153-50.masergy.com [64.47.153.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4VH4IlS053964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 May 2013 17:04:19 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <51A8D80D.4030200@bogus.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:13 -0700 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/21.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Morton , Paul Hoffman , "jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> In-Reply-To: <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 31 May 2013 17:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: wpkops WG , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22I=F1igo_Barreira_=28?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?i-barreira=40izenpe=2Enet=29=22?= Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 31 May 2013 17:04:23 -0000 On 5/31/13 9:59 AM, Bruce Morton wrote: > Iņigo and I are working on a draft of the Trust Model document. I am not sure that we will have time to get it prepared to a state that it will be able to be published in the appropriate lead time before the Berlin meeting. > > I will not be able to attend the Berlin meeting, but Iņigo is seeing if he can make it. > > I tend to agree with Paul that if the document has not been circulated and there are no issues raised, then it will be difficult to have agenda items for a meeting. It is the opinion of your AD that drafts that haven't been circulated shouldn't be presented. which is why it's worth having this dicussion now. thanks joel > > Bruce. > > -----Original Message----- > From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:28 PM > To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com > Cc: wpkops WG > Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 > > On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > >> Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IETF 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whether you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an update. If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you are on your project. > The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of the documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally used for discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, but the WG still has no documents published (and essentially no discussion on the list). > > Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will any of the WG documents be published before then? > > And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It doesn't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in them. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From sharon.boeyen@entrust.com Fri May 31 12:11:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B8021F99A3 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 scR5I3UdwkPf for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipedge2.entrust.com (ipedge2.entrust.com [216.191.252.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B999B21F992C for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,780,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="5851833" Received: from unknown (HELO sottexchcas.corp.ad.entrust.com) ([10.4.51.224]) by ipedge2.entrust.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2013 15:11:11 -0400 Received: from SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com ([fe80::389b:f45b:7ea1:79b7]) by SOTTEXCHCAS2.corp.ad.entrust.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Fri, 31 May 2013 15:11:11 -0400 From: Sharon Boeyen To: joel jaeggli , Bruce Morton , Paul Hoffman , "jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" Thread-Topic: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 Thread-Index: Ac5eFBP+zMDMaky/TkeQ46s/0NZtjAAKU36AAAfo5eD//8rDgIAAICvw Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:11:10 +0000 Message-ID: <65DA4BEA501AFC409DF274CC71ED01A57C679C9F@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> <51A8D80D.4030200@bogus.com> In-Reply-To: <51A8D80D.4030200@bogus.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.161.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: wpkops WG , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22I=F1igo_Barreira_=28i-barreira=40izenpe=2Enet=29=22?= Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 31 May 2013 19:11:17 -0000 The WG milestone with respect to the Trust Models draft is that a draft be = adopted as the 1st WG draft in June 2013. In order to accomplish that, a dr= aft needs to be submitted early next week to give the WG members time to re= view, discuss and potentially an updated draft submitted for WG adoption be= fore the end of June. If you and Inigo have an updated draft it should be s= ubmitted asap. If there are outstanding issues those could be identified on= the mail list and input soliticited from WG membership.=20 -----Original Message----- From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= joel jaeggli Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:04 PM To: Bruce Morton; Paul Hoffman; jeremy.rowley@digicert.com Cc: wpkops WG; "I=F1igo Barreira (i-barreira@izenpe.net)" Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 On 5/31/13 9:59 AM, Bruce Morton wrote: > I=F1igo and I are working on a draft of the Trust Model document. I am no= t sure that we will have time to get it prepared to a state that it will be= able to be published in the appropriate lead time before the Berlin meetin= g. > > I will not be able to attend the Berlin meeting, but I=F1igo is seeing if= he can make it. > > I tend to agree with Paul that if the document has not been circulated an= d there are no issues raised, then it will be difficult to have agenda item= s for a meeting. It is the opinion of your AD that drafts that haven't been circulated shoul= dn't be presented. which is why it's worth having this dicussion now. thanks joel > > Bruce. > > -----Original Message----- > From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:28 PM > To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com > Cc: wpkops WG > Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 > > On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley w= rote: > >> Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IET= F 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whe= ther you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an updat= e. If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you a= re on your project. > The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of = the documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally used= for discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, but the= WG still has no documents published (and essentially no discussion on the = list). > > Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will a= ny of the WG documents be published before then? > > And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It do= esn't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in them= . > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > 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 From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Fri May 31 12:15:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB32821F972C for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:15:47 -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 l1CRiyzB9U10 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B13A21F991F for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3DDBEB0; Fri, 31 May 2013 20:15:20 +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 vWMSexauOi99; Fri, 31 May 2013 20:15:17 +0100 (IST) Received: from [192.168.147.94] (unknown [216.239.55.62]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5B90BE8E; Fri, 31 May 2013 20:15:16 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <51A8F6C2.6020902@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:15:14 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Morton References: <073501ce5e17$0c8effc0$25acff40$@digicert.com> <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> In-Reply-To: <452C99D20750E74083DBA441FF9323857BF92A9D@SOTTEXCH10.corp.ad.entrust.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: wpkops WG , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22I=F1igo_Barreira_=28i?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-barreira=40izenpe=2Enet=29=22?= , Paul Hoffman , "jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 X-BeenThere: wpkops@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, 31 May 2013 19:15:48 -0000 On 05/31/2013 05:59 PM, Bruce Morton wrote: > Iņigo and I are working on a draft of the Trust Model document. I am not sure that we will have time to get it prepared to a state that it will be able to be published in the appropriate lead time before the Berlin meeting. > > I will not be able to attend the Berlin meeting, but Iņigo is seeing if he can make it. > > I tend to agree with Paul that if the document has not been circulated and there are no issues raised, then it will be difficult to have agenda items for a meeting. Speaking as an IETF participant who'd like to see this work done, I'd really encourage editors to prioritise getting drafts out over perfection. S. > Bruce. > > -----Original Message----- > From: wpkops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:wpkops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:28 PM > To: jeremy.rowley@digicert.com > Cc: wpkops WG > Subject: Re: [wpkops] Agenda Items for IETF 87 > > On May 31, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > >> Please email wpkops-chairs@tools.ietf.org with your agenda items for IETF 87 in Berlin. Also, if you are a document editor, please let us know whether you are attending the meeting and whether you plan to present an update. If you are not attending, please provide a status update on where you are on your project. > > The documents were presented at the last IETF meeting in anticipation of the documents being published. IETF face-to-face meetings are normally used for discussing issues in the WG documents and presenting new work, but the WG still has no documents published (and essentially no discussion on the list). > > Is there really a reason to meet face-to-face at the next meeting? Will any of the WG documents be published before then? > > And yes, I ask this as a co-editor on one of the planned documents. It doesn't seem worth writing the documents if there is no real interest in them. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > 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 >