OK, but it seems to me you've exchanged two lists for one list with a bunch of flags. Not sure why this is in any way an improvement?
On 6 April 2017 at 14:51, Eran Messeri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 6 April 2017 at 14:12, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 06/04/17 13:27, Eran Messeri wrote: >>> >>>> I intend to adopt Richard's suggestion of merging the extension types >>>> for SCTs and STHs. >>>> >>>> Currently there doesn't seem to be a good reason to separate the two - >>>> since the extensions are typed, it'd be easy to differentiate between >>>> the two, and there may be extensions which are shared between SCTs and >>>> STHs. >>>> >>>> This has been reviewed >>>> in https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/224, >>>> rationale updated in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/trans/ticket/173. >>>> >>> >>> I support this too. >>> >>> Note: I just did some editorial follow-up work in >>> https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/244 >> >> >> Really? I am confused by this plan - surely the extensions for STHs and >> SCTs will be different? So what's the value of allowing the wrong ones to >> be included? >> > We don't know yet, as no extension has been defined - but for each > extension, it must be specified whether it should go in the SCT, STH or > both. > So we'd simply have a single extensions repository, rather than two. > >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
