Re: [art] BCP190

["Devon O'Brien" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, and thank you very much for that clarification. I was, however, hoping
to hear if there are specific criticisms of the approach in 6962-bis draft
31 that would warrant altering the CT ecosystem or risk the
non-implementation of 6962-bis. Yesterday, there were multiple comments of
"overbroadness" of BCP 190, and while I'm not sufficiently equipped to
address these general concerns, I was looking to see if there is a
technically sound reason to alter CT from the existing deployed mechanism,
which is also described in pre-draft 32 language of 6962-bis.

Am I to take your position as an endorsement of altering CT to use
/.well-known/ or is it simply a criticism of our (flawed) analysis of
alternatives?

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:33 AM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2019, at 12:20, Devon O'Brien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The TRANS discussion as well as the points summarized in the 105 ART
> slides [1] present a summary of the alternatives considered and why many in
> TRANS feel they are not appropriate in the context of CT.
>
> As I pointed out in the room, the objection to using .well-known was based
> on a misunderstanding on the part of the TRANS working group. It cited not
> just an obsoleted document; it cited the exact text that was removed by its
> successor document to make room for things like CT.
>
> /a
>