Paul, Melinda, May I go ahead and merge https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/313?
James (via a private message) and Andrew have both given it the thumbs up, but it's still not clear to me what the 6962-bis authors can or can't do at this point in the editing cycle. Thanks. ________________________________ From: Andrew Ayer <[email protected]> Sent: 24 September 2019 19:15 To: Rob Stradling <[email protected]> Cc: Manger, James <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Trans] draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33: base URL vs <log server> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:20:46 +0000 Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote: > [Chairs: Given the stage we're at with this document, please could I > ask you to confirm whether or not we may adopt James's editorial > suggestions?] > > On 20/09/2019 03:17, Manger, James wrote: > > Editorial suggestions for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis. > > James: Thanks! I think your editorial suggestions add clarity. > > Here's a PR: > https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/313 This is a good change. With RFC6962, some implementations include "https://"; when addressing logs and others don't. This change makes clear that "https://"; should be included. Regards, Andrew
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
