On 13/03/15 20:58, Rob Stradling wrote: > On 13/03/15 20:25, Stephen Farrell wrote: > <snip> >> And if we interpret 5280 strictly and conclude that is still a >> good plan then the question would be what to do about the SCT >> encoding, which could be to do something hacky like prepending >> another OCTET STRING tag and a length I suppose, > > Stephen, RFC6962 does precisely that, and the current 6962-bis text aims > to do the same.
Really? I though the extnValue was just the SignedCertificateTimestampList and did not contain yet another OCTET STRING tag? That how I read 6962 anyway. S. > > Adding yet another OCTET STRING would turn it into an OCTET STRING > inside an OCTET STRING inside an OCTET STRING! > > I'd be surprised if Russ or Steve Kent would consider that to be any > better than the current plan (an OCTET STRING inside an OCTET STRING). > _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
