Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#173 closed defect (fixed)

De-duplicate Extension types

Reported by: rlb@… Owned by: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis@…
Priority: major Milestone: review
Component: rfc6962-bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

There is no need for separate extension data types for SCTs and STHs. Since
type values aren't signaled, you don't get any type safety benefits, so it's
just needless duplication. Just define one (or re-use the one from TLS), and
separate them by type values if necessary.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by rob.stradling@…

  • Component changed from client-behavior to to-be-decided

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by eranm@…

  • Component changed from to-be-decided to rfc6962-bis
  • Milestone set to review

I support this - from deploying 6962, the realization we've gained is that we need extensibility for SCTs and STHs, not that these extensions need to be different.

The change was reviewed and merged in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/224.

Letting the chairs approve and close if no objections are presented on the list.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by rob.stradling@…

Further editorial changes were reviewed and merged in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/244

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by melinda.shore@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.