IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 29 June 2015 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 E51C51A000A for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 J7EFXGYuu4Nu for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079FA1A0047 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:47973 helo=COMSEC.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1Z9dg3-000HLi-LM for trans@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:21:07 -0400
Message-ID: <55918C93.2040805@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:21:07 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <558D61DE.8020402@nic.cz> <CACM=_OeTnNCk+VSiQ1E5T2_a7YkxwxZ2w8HJSg13wtVc2wQUfA@mail.gmail.com> <55900D1D.2030009@bbn.com> <CABrd9SQV6tybHwgo=ZATEPjhsV64=5=O-fi10pcwHnAHCyArDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SQV6tybHwgo=ZATEPjhsV64=5=O-fi10pcwHnAHCyArDA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/8HI0ctZCj1EJybGNcRuVK-hqhGM>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:21:21 -0000

Ben,

> On 28 June 2015 at 16:05, Stephen Kent<kent@bbn.com>  wrote:
>> IETF standards need to be unambiguous. Code is very helpful, but it is not a
>> substitute
>> for a rigorous description of how to resolve the issue that Onderj raised.
> Whilst I am not necessarily opposed to that, there has to be a point
> at which you stop explaining what can be worked out given existing
> information. The RFC does state how the hash is calculated, from which
> it is clear what the placement of each node is in the hash
> calculation.
My comment is based on the question that was posed by someone for
whom it was not clear. If most other (independent) implementers find
the text clear enough, OK.

Citing a tech paper is not the preferred approach for IETF docs. We
often reproduce info that is available via other means, so that RFCs
are as self-contained as possible.

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email