Re: [Trans] overview of remaining(?) DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33

[Andrew Ayer <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:35:52 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Rob Stradling wrote:
> 
> >> So this seems to contradict itself. You give a good reason why a
> >> base url might change, then suggest to say MUST NOT. And you
> >> cannot add a new entry with updated base url using the same OID I
> >> guess? So one would have to replay the existing log into a new
> >> one. If that becomes a common practise, how is this
> >> distinguishable from a log reply that removes an entry and urges
> >> everyone to (automatically or not) update to the new base url ?
> >
> > Hi Paul.  This was my thought process...
> >
> > A mechanism for a log to change its base url might be "nice to
> > have", but it would add complexity.  Adding complexity should be
> > avoided unless it's "really necessary".  "nice to have" is not
> > "really necessary", and besides, there is already a mechanism for
> > achieving the same goal: retire the current log and spin up a new
> > log.
> >
> > The ecosystem needs to be agile enough to support regular log
> > retirement and regular spinning up of new logs, so let's not
> > (over)engineer an alternative mechanism that assumes the ecosystem
> > lacks that agility.
> 
> While I agree with you, I am just a WG chair. So we need to hear a few
> more opinions of people and then if there is a consensus, we can go
> ahead and make this change.

I'm also not sure what "this change" would be, but I agree with the
other comments here that CT shouldn't provide a mechanism for logs to
change URL.

Regards,
Andrew