[Plants] Re: MTCLogEntry extensibility

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

H Ilari,

> > My concern is that the type of the MTCLogEntry is not known to the relying party.
> > The relying party needs to reconstruct the MTCLogEntry to validate the inclusion proof
> > and the algorithm in the Section 7.2 blindly assumes that the entry
> > always has the tbs_cert_entry format. In case this format is extended in the future,
> > how the relying party would know that a particular MTCProof structure
> > corresponds to a new format (I assume the relying party supports both formats)?
> 
> If the thing RP is processing is a certificate, it is tbs_cert_entry.
> If it is something else (defined later), then it is something else.

So, the data format for log entries for certificates is fixed forever?
I think that this can become a limitation in future...

> E.g., in-tree revocation list could have type of intree_crl_entry.
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, the MTCProof should include MTCLogEntryType, so that
> > the relying party would know how to reconstruct MTCLogEntry.
> > Something along the lines:
> 
> No, this would be insecure.

Why?

Regards,
Valery.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Ilari
> _______________________________________________
> Plants mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]