Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #57 (client-behavior): Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:22:51 -0000

#57: Clients MUST NOT match the redaction label with a "*" label

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/57#comment:1>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:30:34 -0000

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

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  client-behavior          |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/57#comment:2>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:08:49 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * component:  client-behavior => rfc6962-bis

Comment:

 From offline discussion:
 Given 6962-bis already dis-allows redacting '*' domain labels, it makes
 sense to state that if a client encounters such a certificate it must not
 be considered compliant.

 Moving to the rfc6962-bis component.

Component:  rfc6962-bis              |     Version:

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/57#comment:3>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 18:20:09 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Out for review in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/pull/120

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/57#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:03 -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/57#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>