Opened 7 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

#70 closed defect (fixed)

SCT spec needs to define top-level extension syntax

Reported by: kent@… Owned by: rob.stradling@…
Priority: major Milestone: review
Component: rfc6962-bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

The description of the extensions field seems to be inspired by X.509v3.
That's OK, but one needs to define a top-level format for extensions to
ensure backward compatibility (as per v3 extensions)to make this work.
That level of specification is missing here.

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by rob.stradling@…

  • Component changed from client-behavior to rfc6962-bis

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by benl@…

It was our view that we did not need to specify the format until the first extension was defined.

However, happy to consider proposed text.

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by rob.stradling@…

  • Owner changed from draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis@… to rob.stradling@…
  • Status changed from new to assigned
  • Summary changed from STH spec needs to define top-level extension syntax to SCT spec needs to define top-level extension syntax

Updated by https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/commit/ea619421795c402894a2065fe4578e1eb1379221 so that SCT extensions and STH extensions (ticket #5) name things consistently.

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by melinda.shore@…

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