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

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:29:54 -0000

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

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Updated by https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/ea619421795c402894a2065fe4578e1eb1379221 so that SCT
 extensions and STH extensions (ticket #5) name things consistently.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/70#comment:4>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:26:41 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/70#comment:5>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>