#31: incremental deployment and client behavior
Comment (by [email protected]): (1) The current wording implies specifying client behaviour. As we do not intend to specify it, we should reword it to say that a certificate not accompanied by an SCT MUST NOT be considered CT compliant (as one of the situations the client could encounter). (2) Then there's no mandated hard-fail and the issue around incremental deployment is moot - the client can decide when, and for which certificates, it requires CT compliance. Bottom line: Reword to remove the hard requirement and include this situation in the list of situations a client could encounter. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/31#comment:1> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
