I disagree with this proposed resolution of the issue.
RFC 5246 says of the syntax:
... The following very basic and somewhat casually
defined presentation syntax will be used. The syntax draws from
several sources in its structure. Although it resembles the
programming language "C" in its syntax and XDR [XDR] in both its
syntax and intent, it would be risky to draw too many parallels. *The**
** purpose of this presentation language is to document TLS only; it has**
** no general application beyond that particular goal.*
Thus use of this syntax in an X.509 cert extension is contrary to the
spirit of 5246.
Steve
#34: use of RFC 5246 syntax to define the SCT
Changes ([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.
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
