#47: Clarify how to deal with (minor) DER violations when manipulating a TBSCertificate
Comment (by [email protected]): Seems to me that this issue is still present after the Precertificate changes as clients would still have to manipulate the final X.509 certificate to extract the TBSCertificate part, remove extensions and reconstruct the redacted TBSCertificate if there are redactions. It would be exacerbated if we accept ticket #4 (Signing the TBSCertificate part for certificates as well). Ben, are you suggesting the log does not provide SCTs for such certificates but does include them in the tree? -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/47#comment:4> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
