Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:02:19 -0000

#83: CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I am addressing this. But what about RSA?

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 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/83#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:08:41 -0000

https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/b5ac6c47af298ef8e74c084f1d654547c55c3010

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:31:31 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => needs-review

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:44:45 -0000

* status:  closed => reopened
 * resolution:  needs-review =>

     Type:  defect       |      Status:  reopened

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:4>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:44:58 -0000

* status:  reopened => closed
 * resolution:   => needs-review

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:5>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:51 -0000

* milestone:   => review

 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:6>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:26:53 -0000

Not sure this is ready for closing: the question remains "what about
 RSA?".

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:7>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:28:04 -0000

* milestone:  review => milestone1

Comment:

 My bad - that's exactly what I was looking at and don't have an answer
 yet.
 (removing 'review' milestone)

 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  milestone1

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:8>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>