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

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:02:04 -0000

#115: Verify that recommended consistency checking algorithm is correct

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Eran has fixed this for consistency proofs but has not yet checked
 inclusion proofs - I will do that.

-- 
------------------------------+----------------------------------
 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/115#comment:3>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:11:35 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Inclusion proof description exactly matches code, with no room for
 interpretation.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:11:53 -0000

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:24:44 -0000

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

     Type:  defect            |      Status:  reopened

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:6>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:39 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

 Priority:  major             |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:7>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:52:55 -0000

* milestone:  review =>

Comment:

 Removing review milestone.
 Per offline clarification, we should make sure that the test cases in
 test_rfc_algorithms.py cover positive and negative cases (by copying the
 concepts from https://github.com/google/certificate-
 transparency/blob/master/cpp/merkletree/merkle_tree_test.cc) then make
 sure the algorithm identifies both success and failure correctly.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:8>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:11:00 -0000

Changes being reviewed in https://github.com/google/certificate-
 transparency-rfcs/pull/125

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:9>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:02:27 -0000

* milestone:   => review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:10>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:55:44 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/115#comment:11>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>