Re: [Trans] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rich,

I was almost sure we had this exchange, and yet I can't find it in my email
archives. Anyway:

Regardless of the outcome of this LogID discussion, I do not object to you
making changes (or not) as you see fit, having considered my comments.

Thanks for the response
Martin

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:15 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>    - I'm not sure this is correct, Rich? Logs regularly rotate IDs;
>    presently annually, but it's reasonable to anticipate more frequently as
>    the size/performance tradeoffs, precisely as the way of pruning the storage.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the correction!
>
>
>
> So how do replying parties know the log ID changed?  And do we need to
> give Log’s not an ID but rather an arc?
>
>
>