Subject: [Trans] [trans] #115 (rfc6962-bis): Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:06:43 -0000

#115: Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct

 The algorithm in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-
 rfc6962-bis-10#section-9.4.2 is somewhat open to interpretation and may
 not handle all edge cases.
 We should make sure that the pitfalls are well documented and all edge
 cases are accounted for.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [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/115>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:35:32 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 They have been verified: https://github.com/google/certificate-
 transparency-rfcs/blob/master/test_rfc_algorithms.py.

 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:34:52 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Sorry, should have been clearer: I have no doubt the algorithm is correct,
 however I managed to interpret it in a way that is not :)
 So I'd like lo go over the code vs. the document to clarify the points
 where I mis-interpreted the text.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>