#99: Clearer definition of when a certificate is CT-compliant needed Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => needs-review Comment: Propose this ticket be closed (Fixed) as the term 'compliant' is now used consistently throughout the text to mean 'compliant with the RFC'. For example, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans- rfc6962-bis-10#section-9.2: "By validating SCTs, TLS clients can thus determine whether certificates are compliant. A certificate not accompanied by a valid SCT MUST NOT be considered compliant by TLS clients.". -- ------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: [email protected] | Owner: [email protected] Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: needs-review Keywords: | ------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/99#comment:1> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
