#34: use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => wontfix Comment: TLS extensions are defined using RFC 5246 format, so clearly it is correct to use that format for the TLS extension. There is no compelling reason to have multiple SCT formats, and good reasons to not do so (complexity, extra signing overhead). So, closing this ticket without changing the format. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: wontfix Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/34#comment:2> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
