Re: [Trans] Bad Technical Decision: Closing out the SCT encoding discussion

[Rob Stradling <[e-mail]>]

On 13/03/15 21:05, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 13/03/15 20:58, Rob Stradling wrote:
>> On 13/03/15 20:25, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> And if we interpret 5280 strictly and conclude that is still a
>>> good plan then the question would be what to do about the SCT
>>> encoding, which could be to do something hacky like prepending
>>> another OCTET STRING tag and a length I suppose,
>>
>> Stephen, RFC6962 does precisely that, and the current 6962-bis text aims
>> to do the same.
>
> Really?

Really.  That's what all the current implementations of RFC6962 are doing.

> I though the extnValue was just the SignedCertificateTimestampList
> and did not contain yet another OCTET STRING tag? That how I read
> 6962 anyway.

Some other folks read it that way too, apparently.

Hence http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/14

> S.
>
>>
>> Adding yet another OCTET STRING would turn it into an OCTET STRING
>> inside an OCTET STRING inside an OCTET STRING!
>>
>> I'd be surprised if Russ or Steve Kent would consider that to be any
>> better than the current plan (an OCTET STRING inside an OCTET STRING).

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online