Re: [Ilc] Welcome to the ILC list

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Thu, 16 February 2017 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
X-Original-To: ilc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ilc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6036F12953E for <ilc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritter.vg
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 SBOL48taGqOI for <ilc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2A5F129624 for <ilc@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p22so24292090qka.0 for <ilc@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z3HlvY1wPQz/1j79mps7isvwr+/dI1T7N68kv/P6CD8=; b=l5kIjVkZJoYQuJWs/qrVoAmi6o1MlE8TVygM7/KCngDswFV4MS3Pnb4Xj58r2Xvuh1 f5Qj9lzAnPu4v0vhnyLjIMVK+V5VTlhK9EWTgJTWDDNhlHeHV0kOGgcUUVLw7A5+iaNa y4dstxj7ZedAHq9P8FiZE8B9fe9cPgmDVA9Hs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z3HlvY1wPQz/1j79mps7isvwr+/dI1T7N68kv/P6CD8=; b=nzAt2y2bRC+4lmFDW1By8Gosq0LE/pzKCoePFWmBz+0nF5oMdDilv+1y8y8H+u0bn9 p21iLGnYtlt1o8qeQAvubEKYGePmm+8lvz2U8g2+JfDVfS8O7rNZuAkG6sijXwh8UrhP tV8KZ8IdAA6lxGo09s5j1sRamJmrhACtkV7IGdwVBJrh9sG8Ta4yWYkVUtkI5wLem4k4 IB6vqOgtwnlLxRYL5AWbwHoswgWGlDiL3Z49cMmKgYGB+bIwFnQah/Dxy8MP9syILQR2 hgjoFN9XxA0CCOCSfiGwn23/aptnugRMWR8gVEzylTCpAra2RU9T2qm8ExaIZ1fi61gf buZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39klH/ltliPg3g6wi8fj9hF6MEW6VaIoXLY8wPGe96k7Ua8PClLk0g7cOtPkvZnJfaCA4+LSSYUtHiPm7R3+
X-Received: by 10.55.113.129 with SMTP id m123mr3870517qkc.47.1487270673040; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.94.244 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:44:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87mvdpon45.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
References: <87mvdpon45.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:44:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+cU71=WFjAsk53aEYta_RpEbXzKLhUeOJzei6f22E6B7-A17Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Mazieres expires 2017-05-14 PDT <mazieres-55gj72eaqw2pcqj8rgxsi8nvz2@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ilc/2z0_a79ZPhV4YCeORnxqCh-eqQM>
Cc: ilc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ilc] Welcome to the ILC list
X-BeenThere: ilc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of mechanisms and applications for Internet-level consensus." <ilc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ilc>, <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ilc/>
List-Post: <mailto:ilc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ilc>, <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:44:35 -0000

On 13 February 2017 at 14:24,  <dm-list-ietf-ilc@scs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Thanks for subscribing to the Internet-level consensus mailing list.
> Now that we've got 50+ people on the mailing list, let's start the
> discussion.
>
> Consensus is the task of a agreeing on a particular value among
> multiple valid inputs in a distributed system.  This problem is at the
> heart of fault-tolerant replication and distributed transaction
> processing.
>
> An Internet-level consensus mechanism is one that accommodates the
> decentralized nature of the Internet to agree on values without
> relying on a centralized authority for configuration.  Specifically,
> the goal is to achieve consensus in settings where there may be
> Internet-wide benefit from agreement, yet the security concerns of
> participants and the multi-national nature of the network preclude any
> globally-acceptable consortium in which to concentrate trust.


I'm a little confused here.  The very first example listed on the
mailing list description is:

"""
The IETF trans working group is specifying data structures and
operational mechanisms for providing secure logging and auditing of
TLS server certificates, but lacks a mechanism for determining
consensus among logs (or consensus about whether or not a resource
should be logged). These functions are currently served by an
experimental gossip protocol that can potentially be strengthened
through global consensus.
"""

The Gossip protocol (of which I am an author) does not really attempt
to determine consensus; nor does it attempt to "[agree] on a
particular value among multiple valid inputs in a distributed system".

It attempts to expose all valid values (meaning
has-a-signatures-that-validates) to an Internet-wide group of
participants. If there's a piece of data, signed by a log, we want to
show share the data (or a derivative of it) with "The Internet" (for
some definition of "The Internet") can "The Internet" can review it.

I suppose, after gossip occurs, there is a consensus mechanism. But
it's really very simple and mathematically sound. "Given all the
inputs I have, can I assemble them into a single consistent
Append-Only Merkle Tree; or not?" There is no participation required
with anyone else, the 'consensus mechanism' is positively true or
false for everyone independently. It's the data gathering that's
tough.

-tom