Subject: [pkix] TAMP spec WGLC is still over :-)

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:42:57 -0500

Denis,

On 11/10 I sent the following message:

>Folks,
>
>The TAMP WGLC period ended on 10/19. While there have been useful 
>discussions beyond that time, it now seems appropriate to consider 
>this WGLC to be over.
>
>Based on the messages from Denis, Carl, Russ, and Santosh over the 
>period from 10/8-11/3, I see no need for additional changes need to 
>be made to this document. Additional features and options may be 
>pursed in a future, extensions document.
>
>Steve

You replied (on the same day) that you saw the need for additional 
changes.  Carl generated some additional Secruity Considerations 
text, which was then modified based on comments from Stefan, Sean, 
and Paul. Later comments from Geoff, Thomas, Stefan, Carl, and Russ 
all reinforce the notion that the current
text is adequate, and that you are the only WG member who is 
expressing a strong belief that additional changes are needed.

I have determined that we have WG consensus, with the modified text 
Carl offered, below:

"As sequence number values are used to detect replay attempts, trust 
anchor store managers must take care to maintain their own sequence 
number state, i.e., knowledge of which sequence number to include in 
the next TAMP message generated by the trust anchor store manager. 
Loss of sequence number state can result in generation of TAMP 
messages that cannot be processed due to seqNumFailure.  In the event 
of loss, sequence number state can be restored by inspecting the most 
recently generated TAMP message or in collaboration with a trust 
anchor store manager who can successfully issue a TAMPStatusQuery 
message. "

Carl, please post a revised version (05) of the TAMP spec with this text.

Steve