#59: Clarify STH versioning
Comment (by [email protected]): I can't find anywhere that requires a v2 STH. However, I agree that we do not need to make this change yet: if we discover a need for extensions in an STH, then we can introduce a v2 STH and new APIs that deal with v2 STHs. Existing code can continue to use v1 STHs and the corresponding APIs. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- 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/59#comment:1> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
