Subject: [Trans] [trans] #92 (rfc6962-bis): get-entries needs to return the whole X509ChainEntry

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:56:51 -0000

#92: get-entries needs to return the whole X509ChainEntry

 The "extra_data" returned by get-entries currently says:
   'In the case of an X509ChainEntry, this is the "certificate_chain"'

 This is insufficient.  A client that calls get-entries also needs the
 actual leaf certificate, so that they may verify that the leaf cert really
 was signed by the appropriate CA private key.  (Without this, the client
 would have to trust that the log performed that verification, unless the
 client happens to stumble upon that particular leaf cert some other
 source).

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/92>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:21:21 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Fixed at https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/7793e62f8f7ec7d95fac308fbe800539b1749b4a

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [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/92#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:27:22 -0000

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

Comment:

 I just realized that resolving as "needs-review" was the wrong thing to
 do. Reopening and setting milestone to "review" instead.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/92#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:30:35 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:  fixed

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/92#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>