IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Further comments on RFC 6962

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8701A077B for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 OdibZJbg1OKp for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x235.google.com (mail-ve0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EE41A0745 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id oy12so8646642veb.26 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DzAHbUH//EGiAGOAk8SGVryeuBMJwHmyENW4ZKuWg2A=; b=U+4+IV09i+qxviUoWA8s8ar1IfQfWkagE4UQQKkWQz7D2zhJsLkzVVBO4zRDUGXL2q Z3sJ3xRGfRxxpZ+wWdLH2o6unTF5aOsQZlU89aB+BF8Ysxy+Hh+563hqzmgN/A39Q8yD YSYwqdu9FaSMK9r2UNnCPtzArDVUny+IvOH1LFgERUh9dfmC03TFBWNr6hKA0b9e+87N BeHEKSsu4nhNkOzC79SkjbPCrEB4QKc83bVusozd2mR5WOvZ2L+2xwqXZ8fcG/jv6L1u XIAEw+tz6X/KBWXIFYACmV+evKuXuRNF+Fb5yMqMg9pLU8bqZix5Ds4vRg6dT0O9wRGR FYRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DzAHbUH//EGiAGOAk8SGVryeuBMJwHmyENW4ZKuWg2A=; b=TG/I5uwvy6vy7frFNJwqMvJikcOXrA3vKmvsl+Eyh0FeLQPhmSb7j6ZeINvs7lKIEV KOa4OSFdyaIalHjbZexYUAB66Kf23Png+ZsKCro3f1u2szXXFNwqh/Y1MhOc5TE0cD1L msMSIQ+PpQ5ivu9weK223BP+Rx1Geg9iFaNnQ+j5qR9VE4zsDwQXrmIjT872Mgn0codH a76BKNfyzN0gjpazjyfW/ohI3MKU6TPBqT4I/AACzYaVDV1WZ23BzVsD48yXmLyU3GHQ MGRe5kPI2rDUATtCc8Fd2LZW3ZzTepLlhCGarVAhI17PtdmEnfjGR7EEEMjIucu8wOPy pt+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmbMJEbravv/ycHbmg97U59PLmUBeQPQNJHpXVgMHGDlTciGxu4Q3io2e/ozwRi7VMAW+rKHQEGaNUkgztZqP3G6LAEegWirhenIPh2CGZhyvjUIOl3aeH316A5lzf5/zBxwmbLbSnhm16FQ6U3dmsabkHe4XTbakYyJ7vE8Ec6EaW8cZnToFpJKmcw3N+iEkY3sIdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.230.105 with SMTP id sx9mr27636085vdc.10.1394553341262; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.230.105 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjGdit7smWasFB5FVAnkjZ_ejnGPKiSPwMNMVQ8fMRT-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwhpCD9gf_XJUTsKBo3739jOeiHdedqWwi3b0jkeZkSo8w@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9SQim3ev=2rsCDXSF5fWqv3+cKf9j-88pQ+4NAaBV9w2PA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjGdit7smWasFB5FVAnkjZ_ejnGPKiSPwMNMVQ8fMRT-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:55:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SShfCcahg7C-eHFpn8=wLgkLgsUPhFM7O2LhOO-J9jh1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/8DLNPBcy6fQ0CYWergb4Ol-M7Zo
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Further comments on RFC 6962
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:55:49 -0000

On 11 March 2014 15:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since a 6962-bis already exists
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/) it
>> would be better to comment on that. But I think all these comments
>> apply anyway.
>>
>> On 10 March 2014 20:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 4) sha256_root_hash.
>> >
>> > Really? This should be an object that has an algorithm/data pair.
>> > Encoding
>> > the algorithm into the tag is going to make algorithm agility hard.
>>
>> I agree about the name. Not sure I agree about agility. We don't think
>> a log can change algorithm partway through - at least, we don't think
>> we want to specify how.
>>
>> If you want a new algorithm, you start a new log.
>
>
> But the digest algorithm has to be specified somewhere. Or how does the
> client discover what it is?

The acceptable logs and their algorithms are built into the client -
alternatively, they can retrieve a list of log metadata (keys,
algorithms, MMDs, etc). We will be distributing such a list
corresponding to what Chrome accepts.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email