Replace the GBS spec references to RFC 7469 with an inline explanation of certificate validation rules #3661

Open
opened 2021-04-02 13:42:00 +00:00 by exarkun · 1 comment

Discussion on a GBS PR (https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/1011#discussion_r604552361) suggests that the RFC 7469 reference is more confusing than useful. Indeed, RFC 7469 is large and covers many validation tasks that GBS has no interest in.

The actual SPKI validation rules we care about are not so complex that we cannot just document them ourselves.

Discussion on a GBS PR (<https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/1011#discussion_r604552361>) suggests that the RFC 7469 reference is more confusing than useful. Indeed, RFC 7469 is large and covers many validation tasks that GBS has no interest in. The actual SPKI validation rules we care about are not so complex that we cannot just document them ourselves.
exarkun added the
unknown
normal
defect
n/a
labels 2021-04-02 13:42:00 +00:00
exarkun self-assigned this 2021-04-02 13:42:00 +00:00
maylee commented 2021-05-02 13:45:19 +00:00
Owner

Milestone renamed

Milestone renamed
tahoe-lafs added this to the Non-Foolscap communications milestone 2021-05-02 13:45:19 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#3661
No description provided.