Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #56 (rfc6962-bis): "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:46:11 -0000

#56: "*" domain labels MUST NOT be redacted

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 The current text of 6962-bis says:
 'When creating a Precertificate, the CA MAY substitute one or more of the
 complete leftmost labels in each DNS-ID with the literal string
 "(PRIVATE)".'

 On the mailing list we considered relaxing the "complete" and/or
 "leftmost" requirements, but everyone seems to agree that both of these
 requirements should remain.

 Peter Bowen suggests that...
 '...if the left most label is exactly "*", then it is considered redacted
 for the purposes of determining if the label to the right may be redacted.
 That would allow *.?.?.example.com to be an allowable redaction.'

 (Note: Peter's example assumes that we will change the redaction label
 from "(PRIVATE)" to "?", as proposed in ticket #54).

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis              |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/56#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:11:46 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] =>
     [email-masked]
 * status:  new => assigned

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  assigned
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis              |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/56#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:27:18 -0000

* status:  assigned => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Committed as...
 https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/49de5eb87e1e6d29e50c418c00654a79a950522d

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis              |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/56#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>