On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Melinda Shore wrote:
One of the open issues (ticket 34: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/34) concerns SCT syntax, with Steve Kent arguing that either ASN.1 should be used or that there needs to be a clearer justification for the choice of 5246 representation (see RFC 5246, section 4). We need to come to a decision whether or not to go ahead and carry forward what's in 6962 (the TLS format). This is a call for discussion - we'd really like to close this in the next week or so.
See also Ben's slide deck from IETF-91 (slide 6 & 7) http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-trans-4.pdf And the raw minutes (look for "slides-91-trans-4.pdf" in the text) http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-trans Ben has argued that SCT's appear only as TLS structures or DER format, and prefers the TLS structure as the DER format is used with OCSP only. Steve has argued against that since two of the three formats are ASN.1. At IETF-91, various people mumbled semi-off mic that ASN.1 would not be their preferred format. So while it seems to be leaning towards using the TLS structure, it would be good to get some additional voices heard from the people who were not at the last meeting and from those who only made comments off-mic to explain themselves a bit better. Paul _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
