Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #78 (rfc6962-bis): algorithm agility discussion is inadequate

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:39:44 -0000

#78: algorithm agility discussion is inadequate

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 It seems to me that the misleading text is what Steve quotes:
 "If necessary, the new log can contain existing entries from the frozen
 log, which monitors can verify are an exact match.".

 I've changed the text in my pull request to clarify that the old and new
 log are unrelated - that certificates in the old log that haven't expired
 and still require valid SCTs should be re-logged in the new log and SCTs
 from the new log used.

 Is that adequate?

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 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: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/78#comment:8>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:48:51 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] => [email-masked]

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/78#comment:9>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>