Subject: [wpkops] Initial draft of the revocation document.

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:20:50 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-pkixstatus-00.txt

This is a very very drafty draft. At this stage I am still trying to
describe the ground we want to measure. But I did say I would post what I
had today.

Need to decide on terminology across all the drafts. Are we talking about
clients or Relying parties etc. Needs to be the same. Probably should be
RPs but have not changed mine yet.

Also have to go back to the minutes to see if I left any dimensions of the
revocation world out.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:37:29 +0100

On 07/06/13 21:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> describe the ground we want to measure. But I did say I would post what
> I had today.
> Need to decide on terminology across all the drafts. Are we talking
> about clients or Relying parties etc. Needs to be the same. Probably
> should be RPs but have not changed mine yet.

Clients and Relying Parties are terms used outside of the Web PKI.

Wouldn't it be better to pick a term that only refers to all Clients of 
the Web PKI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser
"A web browser (commonly referred to as a browser) is a software 
application for retrieving, presenting and traversing information 
resources on the World Wide Web."

> Also have to go back to the minutes to see if I left any dimensions of
> the revocation world out.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> wpkops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
>

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:39:09 -0400

That is a good idea.

I dislike using RP as it comes with baggage. There is an advantage to
having some distance when considering operations.

Web Browser would address that.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Rob Stradling <[email-masked]>wrote:

>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-**hallambaker-pkixstatus-00.txt<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-pkixstatus-00.txt>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Web_browser<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser>
> application for retrieving, presenting and traversing information resources
> on the World Wide Web."
>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> wpkops mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/wpkops<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops>
>>
>>
> --
> Rob Stradling

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:09:36 -0400

> Web Browser would address that.

Are we just talking about web browsers in this WG, though?  there are
more clients that use the web other than web browsers, and those clients
seem like they should be covered by the guidance that this working group
can offer. For example, software update retrieval mechanisms should
probably be considering certificate revocation status when they
establish https connections to their origin host.  Do they?

	--dkg

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:39:26 -0700

On Jun 8, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Are we just talking about web browsers in this WG, though?  

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/wpkops/charter/

--Paul Hoffman