On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 03:48:54PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote: > >>A discussion of what Google is implementing, based on an Experimental > >>RFC, ought not be construed as relevant to what a standards track RFC > >>will mandate. Or, are you saying that Google feels that browser > >>vendors, CAs and log operators will be reluctant to deploy a standard > >>that deviates in significant ways from the Experimental protocol? > > > >No, I mentioned it only because it appears to be a point of confusion. > > Thanks for the clarification. So long as the folks (other than Google) > deploying 6962 don't object to the fact that 6962-bis may have a number of > differences, OK.
As someone who is planning on providing a public 6962-compatible log server and monitor/auditor well in advance of the Google CT deadline, I do not object to the fact that 6962-bis may have a number of differences. - Matt _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
