The "TLS" syntax/notation is also used to describe certificates and messages in ITS world. It's very bad, but that's not RFC5246 authors's fault.
X.509 permits the inclusion of anything in an extension, as long as it's enclosed in something that has an ASN.1+DER representation, whence the double OCTET STRING sometimes found. That's not new to CT. 2015-02-26 21:37 GMT+01:00 Stephen Kent <[email protected]>: > 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 (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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans > > -- Erwann.
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
