[ltans] Question about RFC 4998 Section 4.2 Archive TimeStamp Generation
Satoru Otsubo <hatt3@otip.jp> Sun, 20 December 2009 10:53 UTC
Return-Path: <hatt3@otip.jp>
X-Original-To: ltans@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltans@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293553A680B for <ltans@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGS5MhPqeHbT for <ltans@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from auth.gate-on.net (auth.gate-on.net [210.197.72.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EC13A6808 for <ltans@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from otip.otip.jp (KD113159121125.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp [113.159.121.125]) by auth.gate-on.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3959F13B for <ltans@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:06 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by otip.otip.jp with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <hatt3@otip.jp>) id 1NMJPO-00069m-MI for ltans@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:06 +0900
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:06 +0900
From: Satoru Otsubo <hatt3@otip.jp>
To: ltans@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20091220195306.a9eac454.hatt3@otip.jp>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.3.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ltans] Question about RFC 4998 Section 4.2 Archive TimeStamp Generation
X-BeenThere: ltans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <ltans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltans>
List-Post: <mailto:ltans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:53:23 -0000
I am Satoru Otsubo. In RFC 4998, Section 4.2 Generation, stage 4., there is the following explanation (Page 13, line 1-3): (If additional hash values are needed, e.g., so that all nodes have the same number of children, any data may be hashed using H and used.) But I think, if one node is build from two nodes, no additional hash values are needed. For example, (a) h123 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x h12 x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x h1 h2 h3 (b) h1234 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x h12 h34 x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x h1 h2 h3 h4 (c) h12345 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x h1234 x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x h12 h34 x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 (d) h123456 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x h1234 x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x h12 h34 h56 x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 As shown fig(a),(b),(c),(d), despite the number of datagroups (leaves), a root node seems to be always build without additional hash values, as long as one node is build from two nodes. What situation is imagined as a case where additional hash values are needed ? Thanks in advance.
- [ltans] Question about RFC 4998 Section 4.2 Archi… Satoru Otsubo
- [ltans] Question about RFC 4998 Section 4.2 Archi… Satoru Otsubo