I'd like to see if there's any objection to moving two optional methods from 6962-bis to the monitoring API draft: * get-entry-for-sct <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-20#section-7.1> * get-entry-for-tbscertificate <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-20#section-7.2>
These were added at a late stage by Ben, are not essential to the protocol and would be very suitable for a monitor. It is possible for logs to implement these methods under the same namespace of the log (so in effect it would behave exactly as if they were defined in 6962-bis): - Add an optional parameter for specifying the Log ID requests refers to was added. - Logs that implement these methods would not require the Log ID parameter and would simply reply with data from their tree. - Monitors that implement these methods would require the Log ID parameter and would reply with data from multiple logs (output is keyed by Log ID). The same thing can be applied to the proposed get-sths method which, as decided, would live in a monitoring API document, so the three methods form the base of the monitoring API draft. PR for removing the methods: https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/204 PR adding the monitoring API draft: https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/203 Regards, Eran
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
