On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 2:09 PM Dennis Jackson <i...@dennis-jackson.uk> wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 21:17, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I wouldn't want to 'permanently' encode the root programs, CT > trusted log lists or end entity compressed extensions for example. > > > Arguably it will be necessary to encode the database in the final RFC. > Otherwise, you have what is effectively a normative reference to the > contents of the CCADB. > > I haven't thought through this completely, but I mention it because it > may affect the rest of the design decisions if we end up with the > WG having to produce the database. > > To clarify: I'm fine with encoding things permanently in an RFC for use > with a specific code point. I just wouldn't want to do that for multiple > future code points to be used in future years since predicting developments > is inherently hard. > That seems sensible. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
