Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof

On 29 June 2015 at 20:17, Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> As a general rule, placement and organization does not matter.
>
> If someone gives you the apex value of the tree and the sequence of branch
> values and whether they are left or right, you have all the info required to
> verify.

CT does not tell you left or right, since you can work it out from the index.

> While the spec says 'Merkle tree', all that is required for interop is to
> deliver the correct branches.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>