Subject: Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

From: Gervase Markham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:30:27 +0200

On 31/03/14 17:16, Stephen Kent wrote:
> know how to process ASN.1), and since the consumers of the data are
> browsers who already
> process certs, it seems reasonable to stick with ASN.1.

AIUI, when a browser receives a cert, it will need to reconstruct the
pre-cert in order to check that the SCT (which is a signature over the
pre-cert) is valid. If that is the case, is it not true that browsers
will need to develop some way of _encoding_ ASN.1 which they did not
need to have before?

(I may well be wrong about this; please correct me if so.)

Gerv

---

From: Gervase Markham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:30:32 +0200

Gerv

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:33:20 +0100

> (I may well be wrong about this; please correct me if so.)

No, you are right.