Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #156 (rfc6962-bis): Can inclusion proofs properly substitute SCTs?

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:34:51 -0000

#156: Can inclusion proofs properly substitute SCTs?

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Sending multiple SCTs, multiple inclusion proofs and multiple STHs as
 separate TransItems would presumably mean added complexity for the client
 in terms of figuring out which ones go with which.

 To avoid that complexity, and to avoid unnecessarily increasing the
 handshake size, why don't we create a new "standalone_inclusion_proof"
 TransItem type that contains just the necessary fields for "SCT +
 Inclusion proof + STH"?

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:09:37 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 A proposed solution is out for review in https://github.com/google
 /certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/142.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:5>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:11:15 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 PR 142 mentioned above was merged.
 Re-assigning to Rob for him to add the mentioned data structure.

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:6>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:42 -0000

Out for review in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-
 rfcs/pull/148, based on Rob's changes and addressing Ben's review
 comments.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:7>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:16:11 -0000

* milestone:   => review

Comment:

 Merged, please review.

 Priority:  critical          |   Milestone:  review

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:8>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:18:44 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:9>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>