W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: CT-Policy (was: Comments on draft-stark-expect-ct-00)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:55:25 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXTUf6E6+Poj1Vgx5P08+AzO1qtKNvnibzA0wHPeaxngA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
Cc: "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
On 25 November 2016 at 02:52, Emily Stark <estark@google.com> wrote:
> But I do think it would be reasonable to advise site operators of the shape
> that a CT policy generally takes and what the moving parts are in practice
> (which is maybe what your point below is getting at).

Yes.  This.

Ideally it would also describe the maximal policy, so an operator
could know where the bar is.  But that's impossible without
enumerating the set of possible log operators and I don't think we
want that.
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 00:55:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:56 UTC