On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Al Cutter <[email protected]> wrote: > I admit I'm not really that familiar with process of defining RFCs, but it > seems weird to me to add a mandatory API, which, as defined in the standard > which makes it mandatory, doesn't solve the problem it was added to solve...
I agree with this. This is an extra hoop for logs to jump through that doesn't add significant value. There are lots of ways to improve CT beyond this RFC. Things like this, if they should be standardized at all, should go into their own RFCs that update or even obsolete 6962-bis. Perhaps a 6962-bis-bis. Cheers, Brian -- https://briansmith.org/ _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
