Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #94 (rfc6962-bis): Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this?

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:39:21 -0000

#94: Fetching of inclusion proofs: Why and when are clients expected to do this?

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/94#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:56:55 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 From the mailing list (Quoting Steve Kent):
 "I think the text in draft-dseomn-trans-browsers-00.txt addresses the
 topic
 of what a browser can/should do re SCTs more clearly that 6962-bis,
 although
 the browser I-D not been updated to reflect the possibility of an
 inclusion
 proof being sent as part of an SCT.

 Also, the topic of when a server should send an inclusion proof, or when
 a CA should embed a proof in an SCT in a cert, should be addressed in
 I-Ds that thoroughly describe server and CA behaviors, e.g.,
 draft-kseo-trans-ca-subject-00.txt."

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/94#comment:6>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:03:18 -0000

Out for review in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/pull/106

 The text is more terse than originally suggested, but should capture the
 original intent.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/94#comment:7>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:13:59 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Fixed at https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/ba6743b1b2e41eea15be40da045509a2e0654bdd.

 Priority:  major             |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/94#comment:8>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:56:59 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/94#comment:9>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>