On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Rob Stradling wrote: > > >> So this seems to contradict itself. You give a good reason why a > >> base url might change, then suggest to say MUST NOT. And you > >> cannot add a new entry with updated base url using the same OID I > >> guess? So one would have to replay the existing log into a new > >> one. If that becomes a common practise, how is this > >> distinguishable from a log reply that removes an entry and urges > >> everyone to (automatically or not) update to the new base url ? > > > > Hi Paul. This was my thought process... > > > > A mechanism for a log to change its base url might be "nice to > > have", but it would add complexity. Adding complexity should be > > avoided unless it's "really necessary". "nice to have" is not > > "really necessary", and besides, there is already a mechanism for > > achieving the same goal: retire the current log and spin up a new > > log. > > > > The ecosystem needs to be agile enough to support regular log > > retirement and regular spinning up of new logs, so let's not > > (over)engineer an alternative mechanism that assumes the ecosystem > > lacks that agility. > > While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few > more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go > ahead and make this change. I'm also not sure what "this change" would be, but I agree with the other comments here that CT shouldn't provide a mechanism for logs to change URL. Regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
