James Manager commented on this PR [1]: "The log parameters are not URLs, but URL templates. The variables that can appear in the templates need to be defined as well. That is, 'first', 'second', 'hash', 'start, and 'end' for various templates. Otherwise the spec is still forcing URL structure on servers (ie variables MUST be querystring fields with these given names)."
How do folks feel about this? [1] https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/311#pullrequestreview-258184865 On 04/07/2019 15:58, Eran Messeri wrote: > Looks good to me. > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:53 PM Rob Stradling <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > SGTM. How does this look? > > https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/311 > > On 03/07/2019 17:29, Andrew Ayer wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:04:04 +0100 > > Eran Messeri <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > >> I think under-specifying it right now is the only option as we > have no > >> specification of the log metadata. I don't think it's too big of a > >> deal as when people start implementing 6962-bis I expect the log > >> metadata format will evolve based on the existing schemas and, if > >> necessary, could be standardized. > > > > Agreed. > > > > Regards, > > Andrew -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Sectigo Limited _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
