IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Mon, 29 June 2015 11:29 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 E6A791A9006 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 sgQje4sEgCld for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x22f.google.com (mail-vn0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6B91A8FD3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbf190 with SMTP id f190so23647870vnb.0 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:48 -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=lseCfCd95Q1Pt53ssTIgNDfOsh43mgWTW+Rqg/S8HIw=; b=Cd41fUg/uF3+9ymhZ4GJEwQhotCqeCv6pw4WSNKpTwazq/ibvt6nukhukyRkPBNJVx w9BHeClKT4eB+93VAOWj0BkEmeWRN57rTchw4nyqreyEbooJrFXFoDcZZyxUF7gpPhm4 SQgz5C4AiW700YhUiC/WV6qLW9x5IqzXU7+C2tJhionnd89K8y1Qmdv43fD4kgTuD6vN UzeIG8ZLQQLAShBEaBlVQREwIrOY6o3X2ABEOeRKVhAUfA8xn5vJEuOkXO0SndwXNTY9 jJUp3OmQ3pwm/wV1FHHbU+5hTlbCLKm+CnIq9P9gQ/rnwGSyWZ1+iPdnc48UJ2kDlxSt DHFA==
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=lseCfCd95Q1Pt53ssTIgNDfOsh43mgWTW+Rqg/S8HIw=; b=R2iLA9D/FRQuPijxDY+pN5/HGT9TzQoXiWkEfVbTu4Y/3NE53y5xYLgGf/iTl4fGsP s5VqVEwImPavccGcuW+SLhMLACkJmB+HgJxcpJ1PgQGKap8jpZCXYsfAdshdy5XobxuY 2J2xb/wNpakryihL9rT8vjG+dV+yZFBBp50YPB0H3pzIxxWcWX+8/2Z1ShaGnGETkcoh Re8vCr1sswxs0+gfgu2uok+s5sxdTF63jTmMqjHwehEkxFCVEjDfD0ylk0ucgVHRkAgO zIcRw5lIM176NntYkC5ZxdLoQAt4AV9B3vgYIiGkqhork+ydK1+ABFAB9clu/rBi6/Df GsSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmCG6MuQ4IKhA80Y5ByMc86nmZWGaCQQEsKPdp0t5Ab93COWQ4Wgb/rao+sjh9xCbsy7gt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.26.5 with SMTP id h5mr12376292vdg.3.1435577387932; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.76.6 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150628220648.GI13302@hezmatt.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> <20150628220648.GI13302@hezmatt.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:29:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SS7-dDYUhJkFe99YQ2EtdO6x10y=VOc4Qr6ERL+PZq0hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/X_JHdoKdyrzya4dzPTMzZEcBHhE>
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
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 11:29:50 -0000

On 28 June 2015 at 23:06, Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> 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.
>
> s/it is clear/it is possible to determine/
>
> I would be in favour of more clarity around exactly how the inclusion proof
> is represented; I recall having significant trouble comprehending how
> inclusion proofs "worked", and ended up examining existing operational logs
> and using trial and error to determine how the inclusion proof was
> presented.

Feel free to open a ticket. However, the mechanism for verifying
inclusion in a Merkle tree is widely available in standard texts, for
example 3.3 in http://www.emsec.rub.de/media/crypto/attachments/files/2011/04/becker_1.pdf.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email