Gossiping in CT
draft-ietf-trans-gossip-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-02-25
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-02-24
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | See IETF 102 discussion -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-102-trans/ |
2020-02-24
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Dead from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-03-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2018-01-14
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-01-14
|
05 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-05.txt |
2018-01-14
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-14
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Tom Ritter , Linus Nordberg , Daniel Gillmor |
2018-01-14
|
05 | Linus Nordberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-14
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2017-04-21
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-03-29
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | 1) "Gossiping in CT" is intended for publication as an Experimental Standard. We opted for Experimental because we suspect that there may be other approaches … 1) "Gossiping in CT" is intended for publication as an Experimental Standard. We opted for Experimental because we suspect that there may be other approaches to gossiping CT data structures that will work as well, and we need more experience with this gossip protocol to develop confidence in it. 2) Document announcement: Technical summary The logs in Certificate Transparency are untrusted in the sense that the users of the system don't have to trust that they behave correctly since the behavior of a log can be verified to be correct. This document tries to solve the problem with logs presenting a "split view" of their operations. It describes three gossiping mechanisms for Certificate Transparency: SCT Feedback, STH Pollination and Trusted Auditor Relationship. Working group summary The only concern expressed during last call on this document was that while there was no substantive disagreement with the contents of this document, there was also not much interest expressed. However, there are several implementations underway, and there was consensus that under the circumstances it is appropriate to progress the document towards publication as an experimental standard. Document quality There are several implementations in progress. We have not heard of vendor plans to deploy the protocol. Again, this is why we chose to request publication as an experimental standard. Personnel Document shepherd: Melinda Shore Responsible AD: Stephen Farrell 3) The document shepherd is also the working group co-chair and has been reviewing the document since before adoption as a working group deliverable. This version is mature and stable, and is ready for publication. 4) No concerns. 5) No portion of the document needs cross-area or outside review. 6) The IETF has traditionally avoided taking on work on what are essentially distributed computing problems, such as gossip protocols. homenet published a consensus protocol recently (RFC 7787) but it is still somewhat unusual. Also, it has just recently been brought to attention that trans documents do not conform to the recommendations regarding URI structure described in BCP 190. 7) Yes, each author has confirmed that any IPR disclosures (would) have been filed. 8) There are no IPR disclosures associated with this document. 9) There is no technical disagreement with the content of this document. The only concern expressed by working group participants is that there is not universal enthusiasm for it, although there is consensus that it is appropriate to publish it as an experimental standard. 10) There are no threats of appeal. 11) There is a missing reference to RFC 2110, and there are some "weird spaces" in some of the diagrams. The nits checker incorrectly interprets some message numbers in diagrams as references. There are 39 too-long lines, and 4 instances of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs. These will be corrected prior to publication. 12) This document does not require MIB doctor, URI type, or media type reviews. 13) All references have been identified as normative or informative. 14) There is a normative reference to a document which has not been published (rfc6962-bis). That document is the core working group deliverable and is close to completing working group last call. 15) There are no normative downward references. 16) This document will not change the publication status of any existing RFCs. 17) There are no IANA considerations. The "IANA Considerations" section has been [TBD]-ed in. 18) There are no new IANA registries. 19) The pseudocode has been given a manual review by the document shepherd. The JSON framework given in the document is not quite correct, as the strings are demarked by single quotes rather than double. This will be corrected prior to publication. |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Responsible AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2017-03-16
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Changed document writeup |
2017-02-02
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2017-02-02
|
04 | Melinda Shore | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-01-11
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Notification list changed to "Melinda Shore" <melinda.shore@gmail.com> |
2017-01-11
|
04 | Melinda Shore | Document shepherd changed to Melinda Shore |
2017-01-11
|
04 | Melinda Shore | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-01-10
|
04 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-04.txt |
2017-01-10
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-10
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: trans-chairs@ietf.org, "Linus Nordberg" , "Daniel Gillmor" , "Tom Ritter" |
2017-01-10
|
04 | Linus Nordberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-09
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-08
|
03 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-03.txt |
2016-03-21
|
02 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-02.txt |
2015-10-19
|
01 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-01.txt |
2015-08-28
|
00 | Paul Wouters | This document now replaces draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct instead of None |
2015-08-28
|
00 | Linus Nordberg | New version available: draft-ietf-trans-gossip-00.txt |