IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33: base URL vs <log server>

Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name> Tue, 24 September 2019 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <agwa@andrewayer.name>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AB81208CB for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewayer.name
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 e8o629nSusUu for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thomson.beanwood.com (thomson.beanwood.com [IPv6:2600:1f16:719:be00:5c48:f083:d884:d130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51E0120874 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=andrewayer.name; s=beanwood20160511; t=1569348921; bh=TXSNIVngSAaXRwlyrzgV2UsIq3Pi5rXUvzvLAdcV7p0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=o5BRUTjQNeaLe8YlGujFQKKzBrXpviEMjfodpi5kv0iBFaHtWJeg3KutiklbMDaA6 820DnmvOVV4mrI0lW43nExrCkFWif4NilSohw+CNCeF4Ox86ssxqfiS3VRXSrGaCbw TEzbUrHcvGoB5TypsZTvQoPhzcqeXFRTNFEBmbwapHJrjlrYk07PbgDFJ2rFVnvusJ AEVY2w0QCXoM/jEg3GjD6O4EVfyp0qIx03jBbjeKMjvb/fWPTENitydNgjiuVbW4Kq rl9dQhMx5tz7PTfrU8bHKtvBSxKV2kpq3L+Z8IEp/qvECNxCxd+ereFExgSMFfVyKs gf6x4P+435caw==
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:15:20 -0400
From: Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
Cc: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <20190924141520.376fbedc7f469fe9971568f7@andrewayer.name>
In-Reply-To: <627fc1e2-b31a-f735-d85b-f16966a744ca@sectigo.com>
References: <SY2PR01MB276490D6C4040637426A787CE5880@SY2PR01MB2764.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <627fc1e2-b31a-f735-d85b-f16966a744ca@sectigo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/duG39jPea_QYjz7AgaBSMEec3tA>
Subject: Re: [Trans] draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-33: base URL vs <log server>
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:15:24 -0000

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:20:46 +0000
Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> wrote:

> [Chairs: Given the stage we're at with this document, please could I
> ask you to confirm whether or not we may adopt James's editorial
> suggestions?]
> 
> On 20/09/2019 03:17, Manger, James wrote:
> > Editorial suggestions for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis.
> 
> James: Thanks!  I think your editorial suggestions add clarity.
> 
> Here's a PR:
> https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/313

This is a good change.  With RFC6962, some implementations include
"https://" when addressing logs and others don't.  This change
makes clear that "https://" should be included.

Regards,
Andrew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email