On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:19 PM Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/26/18 5:50 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:31:13AM +0000, Robin Wilton wrote: > >> Isn’t there a case, here, for asking the tictoc WG for advice about > >> a canonical reference or chunk of text that could be used? > > Seems likely. Are the chairs interested in making such a request? > > Sure, although I'd like to hear from the authors and/or > from implementers, first. My understanding is that that > piece of data is used to provide a sanity check (i.e. an > STH cannot have a timestamp earlier than that of any SCT > in the tree) and it seems to me that the level of rigor > being expected of the timestamp should probably align > with its actual application. So, let's make sure we agree > on what we're asking for before making a request. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans> Just to make sure: We’re talking about the feedback on https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/current/msg03155.html , correct? I’m having trouble squaring that feedback with what’s being discussed here, since it wasn’t a question about the rigor of a globally consistent time, but rather a question about the encoding and wire format being left ambiguously unclear. That is, this is about format and not semantics, and proposed text to try to disambiguate a little more was included.
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
