Rob,
Thanks for the feedback and questions.
Steve, though I disagree with the thing you want to use an extension
for, I completely agree that we need to define the top-level extension
syntax. Your proposed text mostly looks good to me. Just a few
nits/questions...
'The "CtExtensions" type is a vector of 0 or more extensions'
- Isn't that clear from the "CtExtension CtExtensions<0..2^16-1>;"
definition? Why restate it?
I find the syntax here a bit confusing, which I why I included that text.
'All of the extensions in the vector MUST appear in order of
increasing IDs.'
- Why? And what would a CT client do if it encountered a violation
of this proposed MUST?
I was looking for two things: a simple canonicalization to be applied at
this level, and a way
to make it easier for an RP to compare a set of extensions against a
list it might have locally.
'If an implementation sees an extension that it does not understand,
it SHOULD ignore that extension.'
- Wouldn't it be better to include a "critical" flag that has the
same semantics as the "critical" flag for X.509v3 extensions?
I thought about adding a critical flag, ala X,509v3, but was worried
that it might
seem overkill. I defer to the judgement of others here.
Are you planning to submit a pull request on GitHub for your proposed
text? Or shall I?
I'm a believe that details of IETF WG discussions belong on IETF WG
lists, so I have
no plans to push this to GitHub, but thanks for the offer.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
