Subject: [Trans] [trans] #157 (rfc6962-bis): Conflate Version and TransType

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:44:22 -0000

#157: Conflate Version and TransType

 With TransItem support for v1 (RFC6962) disappearing in ticket #153, it
 seems that having the type and version as separate fields just seems to
 complicate matters unnecessarily.  So let's conflate the two fields:

 enum {
     (0), x509_entry_v2(1), precert_entry_v2(2), x509_sct_v2(3),
     precert_sct_v2(4), tree_head_v2(5), signed_tree_head_v2(6),
     consistency_proof_v2(7), inclusion_proof_v2(8), (65535)
 } TransTypeAndVersion;

 The zero value is reserved to avoid confusion with a v1 SCT (which is
 guaranteed to have zero as its first byte).

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis              |    Version:
 Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/157>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:14:58 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Sounds good to me - not only will it remove a field, it will also make it
 crystal clear in implementations which SCTs and other data structures the
 code is referring to (assuming they stick to the RFC naming convention!).

 The only suggestion I have, and it's a very minor one, is to name it
 VersionedTransType.

 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/157#comment:1>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:48:15 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 OK.

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/157#comment:2>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:10:33 -0000

* milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Fixed by https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/commit/919489291b7c9556d70e91e830045d54f7441f1f

 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/157#comment:3>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:02:37 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |      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/157#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>