Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #70 (rfc6962-bis): STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:10:43 -0000

#70: STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 It was our view that we did not need to specify the format until the first
 extension was defined.

 However, happy to consider proposed text.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 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/70#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:34:08 -0400

without a top-level format for SCT extensions, the current spec is 
incomplete, i.e.,
it includes a named data structure with no spec for the content of the 
structure.

I'll send some suggested text.

> Comment ([email-masked]):
>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:00:06 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Fixed by

 https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/91a7ce0bc4e1b51e9e22d015cd6fefc0fcebd202

 and

 https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/7525741318ee7cd4f79d126a708522482b81b1f5

 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/70#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>