Re: [Trans] Precertificate format

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Rob,

> Hi Stephen. That's an interesting idea, but I see a few issues.
>
> Step 4 requires the final cert to be logged, so it's incompatible with 
> the name redaction mechanism.
Oops, an oversimplified description on my part. In step 4 I think one 
can apply the whatever redaction mechanisms that we adopt.
> Monitors want to detect misissuance (i.e. certs that have been issued 
> incorrectly). I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect Monitors to 
> also take responsibility for detecting non-issuance of certs that 
> should have been issued.
The current I-D says
Monitors watch logs and check that they behave correctly.They also

watch for certificates of interest.


The non-issuance of an SCT after issuance of an SCT* for a "certificate 
of interest"
would seem to be within scope, given the somewhat vague description in 
the I-D.


Steve