The -bis authors received this comment a few days ago: "In page 9 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-31 in section in section 2.1.3.1. we find
The : operator and D[k1:k2] are defined the same as in Section 2.1.1. However, in section 2.1.1. the operator : is not found. There is no definition of this operator." The IESG has evaluated version -31, and we (the authors) now have a bunch of DISCUSS comments to address before CT v2 will (finally!) become an RFC. Although it's extremely late in the process to be making any changes to the document (except for addressing the DISCUSS comments), the WG Chairs and A-D (EKR) have given the go-ahead to address the concern noted above, provided that I send this message to the list to give folks a chance to object. I've prepared a PR: https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/308 -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Sectigo Limited _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
