Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #125 (rfc6962-bis): change "will return" to "MUST return"

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:32:33 -0000

#125: change "will return" to "MUST return"

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 No longer applicable - text no longer exists in -11.

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/125#comment:1>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:34:55 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/125#comment:2>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:40:00 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Reopening, because comment:1 is wrong.  The "will return" text is still in
 the document.

 I disagree that it should be changed to "MUST return" though.  This
 section (currently numbered 3) describes Submitter behaviour.  In that
 context, I think it makes sense for log behaviour to be descriptive rather
 than prescriptive.

 For prescriptive log behaviour, see the section currently numbered 5.

 So, having just reopened this ticket, I propose closing it again, as
 WONTFIX.

     Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  reopened

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/125#comment:3>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:11:39 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 > For prescriptive log behaviour, see the section currently numbered 5.

 Got it. I see the MUST in "When it receives a valid submission, the log
 MUST return an SCT that corresponds to the submitted certificate or
 precertificate" now.

 WONTFIX.

 Fine with me.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/125#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:14:15 -0000

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

 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:  wontfix

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/125#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>