Hi Ryan,

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:25:10PM +0900, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for pulling up the primary source; I was just going on the chairs'
summary of the issues and apparently only noticed an unrelated potential issue.
Clarifying that the 64-bit timestamp format (with callout to Sectino 6 of
RFC 5905) is the correct one sounds like a fine thing to do.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

Reply via email to