In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/ Adam Roach (former AD) makes the following COMMENT. Note his paragraph that says “Unless the intention…” I don’t know why this is a COMMENT and wasn’t a DISCUSS.
What are we going to do? Ignore the comment: > Clients are configured with a base URL for a log and construct URLs > for requests by appending suffixes to this base URL. This structure > places some degree of restriction on how log operators can deploy > these services, as noted in [RFC7320]. However, operational > experience with version 1 of this protocol has not indicated that > these restrictions are a problem in practice. The synthesis of URLs by a protocol in this fashion is prohibited by BCP 190: Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for any path component. Unless the intention of this document is to update BCP 190 to change this normative requirement, we can't publish it in its current form. Note that doing so would require a change of venue, as updates to BCP 190 would not be covered by the current TRANS charter. Please see BCP 190 section 3 for alternate approaches. All three approaches could be made to work for CT, and I would be happy to explain how to do so if clarification is desired.
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
