IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Parsing existing logs entries.

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D3C1A03F9 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NOonH_TUHub6 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x234.google.com (mail-vc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90AE1A03E3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hy4so1825064vcb.39 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Jl96ZLM6uJ8jalXHsSKW4Gioymz+c+w/e+UNgYXbdjk=; b=Llg98sBVTUr1io/dD5P+LqMTJt/xB96vNU4U/zetyynGHYat71fCwil4CFkSTQ3wXa +Fe8XyYIVQR91z941Wb4ZmmeZtBg1tDmYqFlhAR+8Z8WRAq2ewsOAKEztZBXQOjDOYDs eZREEdYV+H0PRM38HuG7noFVATmA3mbRo9Qe1qI3ceNyx10ow+C6GCrDigOUp+1lrHQh TG8TIqWbEg4l4iYo97d8HE3bahwZ5kQg7U+fR8Mn5d7bcL4gsgp2yK30F2LJa7itwBCw Q2LGubzcdmAScjo1+Vz0xHqSJ4GoeKfIfsDgB9fH5UcKgYSLHQwVx3Hln2uLyYlQ7vMw 9g5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Jl96ZLM6uJ8jalXHsSKW4Gioymz+c+w/e+UNgYXbdjk=; b=DEo1F597TwmMi4YHP7FFXBZpdtNiVGja/nePUhHZK7aySefZREVuKOT2ghmKMsa6HI 8hEuaMUd4GbY+XQsPy3w4F3Lm9wU1oMuXSNyRoZ7fxEWqMbMspN7MEH3Vd2KsRbQTPiJ l1ko6c63zHBWNT31ZF97inJ+ZWkdNqe+c9JQIpYOEKPuN3bxPxJpcKcgltf0IeCVsv09 jXtf0LVJ6TUCqnRkw7VGLQ8KLFCYA8Q4amFMGboPvgG93NRrZ/qjUksT3tbIYiorCuEP KEGw/AMY6TsnUAneP3jeqWyQa7H5SzeVkiAypml+6fu/aWCPFHX9biooQF7Co//EQGtG fhCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3CTxsbQ2G4tjSTrd/xeVpC1TIsopXTMbAVRB1//O4seqTBCB8MUmhScZ3t/Kw32YlrKSd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.53.13.133 with SMTP id ey5mr10742656vdd.8.1401445138131; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.107.132 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140529203404.GA20394@roeckx.be>
References: <20140529175912.GB15165@roeckx.be> <5387961D.1010503@comodo.com> <20140529203404.GA20394@roeckx.be>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:18:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SRnte5kd2wQ0FsTe5j0N9joTNLXgmo4P1iP5oShyPchog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134cd1ea18d5204fa9b5f33"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/_fTIHhAbie9WVzE4-cBntdaKBnw
Cc: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Parsing existing logs entries.
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:19:04 -0000

On 29 May 2014 21:34, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:18:37PM +0100, Rob Stradling wrote:
> > Kurt, RFC6962 says...
> >
> > "1.2.  Data Structures
> >
> >    Data structures are defined according to the conventions laid out in
> >    Section 4 of [RFC5246]."
> >
> > So you shouldn't have to guess.  Just read RFC5246 Section 4.
>
> Thanks, I seems to have overlooked that section.
>
> Anyway, I really don't understand why this is such a mixture of
> josn and base64 encoded things.  Why isn't this all just json with
> just the certificate in base64?
>

This has come up before. The data appears in multiple contexts. Each of
those contexts has an "obvious" encoding - namely, DER, TLS structure
encoding and JSON. In general, we tried to pick the most natural encodings
depending on the context the data is really "for". Possibly we didn't get
it exactly right. I'm sure whatever we do, someone will be unhappy.

-- 
Certificate Transparency is hiring! Let me know if you're interested.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email