Opened 9 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#24 closed enhancement (fixed)
Add a section about log metadata
Reported by: | eranm@… | Owned by: | eranm@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | review |
Component: | rfc6962-bis | Version: | |
Severity: | - | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
Such a section should describe what is considered a log's metadata, which should include:
- URL (including whether it operates over HTTP, HTTPS or both)
- Public key
- Maximum Merge Delay
- Its operator
- Hash algorithm used in the tree.
I expect we would not care where the log's metadata comes from and not specify how to obtain it.
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by eranm@…
- Owner changed from draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis@… to eranm@…
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by eranm@…
(raw extract from trans meeting minutes at IETF 90)
Steve Kent: There needs to be a standardized way of doing it.
Ben Laurie: Clients trusting logs is like clients trusting CAs. Different clients will have different criteria for which logs to trust.
SK: actually talking about the metadata, contents
paul HOffman: completely disagree with Steve, it is fine that there must be one way that a log server must provide it. A client should not be forced to get it in a particular way
Should be nothing about how clients must be able to get it.
PHB: interop is not the only reason to put something in a spec.
Wes Hardaker: leveling up... work isn't complete, needs much more specification.
Leif : not worried about full specification, syntax is what we need to be worried about.
SK:
BL: If you allow the log to specify its own
Eran: Agree with Leif and Stephen, specify a format for the metadata. Can't specify how the clients get the metadata.
Melinda Shore: sensing agreement to specify a mandatory metadata format for the log servers.
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by eranm@…
MMD should be included in the metadata.
Ben also suggested: which browsers is the log included in, start date, whether the log has been turned down or not.
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by benl@…
- Priority changed from major to minor
- Type changed from defect to enhancement
Partially closed by https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/commit/b750e18e45eed3405cb6c956d09a48b2ae48bb4f.
As I said at IETF 90 (transcript is incomplete), allowing a log to define its own metadata is obviously a security hole, so it is not clear to me what the value of defining an API for the metadata is.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by benl@…
- Milestone set to review
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by melinda.shore@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
From the discussion in the trans wg meeting:
My understanding of the consensus is:
Strong opinion in favour of specifying the metadata format and method for getting it from logs (because it's essential for implementation and such a mechanism is needed anyway).
Based on that, I'll propose (in this ticket) a JSON format for the log's metadata (as well as an additional API call) based on the JSON format here:
http://www.certificate-transparency.org/known-logs/log_list.json