[Trans] Mail regarding draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

[Aljoscha Meyer <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG for the Certificate Transparency RFC,

I want to point you to two (not yet peer-reviewed) paper drafts of mine 
that pertain to CT. The CT RFC and literature barely looks beyond Merkle 
trees, and is missing out on some interesting and efficient constructions.

The first paper frames append-only logs in a more general light, bridges 
the gap to the rich literature on secure timestamping, characterizes a 
graph class that contains Merkle-tree-based logs but also many other 
designs, and derive some efficiency criteria under which CT logs are 
less than ideal: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.13836

The second paper proposes an alternate design that has shorter 
consistency proofs than CT, has constant-size inclusion proofs for item 
i from the i-th signed tree head (and twice as small inclusion proofs on 
average for arbitrary items from arbitrary STHs), and requires 
asymptotically less metadata: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15058

I'm not familiar with the ietf processes, and given the existing 
adoption of CT, there is probably little practical impact to be had. But 
at the very least I wanted to inform you of this material, and I'm happy 
to answer any question or hear about any faults it might have.

Kind regards,
Aljoscha