Re: [Trans] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke <> Thu, 29 July 2021 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E93A09D7 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvE6W1Ab25kR for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0C53A09D5 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y4so7426805ilp.0 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WX4KTpkU2CHMy3aS1SawTdBiMD/EOoTZUpo9u2bxnrI=; b=UW2ruL88KJiTc05PQp/S1De3WPUfBEMT9CzwUEt5KdHWTsiAdJfD3mfGL7/AeSGO68 Ymu5nF2pTZpqpekj2ufhgv9QaQvPEfmY/LBUUwFiFYxllPVUyGZUR/D4LnUfM7ZvfIr8 IfHNnySmIQGVL44QV0rLZpNx7EJlooA/CzwFGJYL8KSiC8U108PsUx2DCKhP7ltS5d+z LPAwE+1FJ1fCRvNUEKRnd2xqOOK5pU9tXnKApS+AdZR0BpXq9hjxKRAQV2YhgczD7OPl DC0IpNRCwb7ZIN4VvrbIGPXH/KCdI1Ck61pYqnHsXYxjnczKYY3pE1M1p0Y9LlrcmeUp R77Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WX4KTpkU2CHMy3aS1SawTdBiMD/EOoTZUpo9u2bxnrI=; b=f2cKroJtbJhC7eI/rsaEPeToI0GWv8nRbzus2wr4Ad5xSc0sBJXrOe1Ak5RkpFo3w0 KAE/wfUI/AD3qsqRRx/3szL05lc7blJQrB2am3wKHiOa4c7H0sailZ5kvCp1dcaRoKME e4aw/SfK1kyhi37JGn8MAiSUivwrOOsyf/YW7VT1q9S78UykjVuK19lIV9CpcgJdaKTs bE5VOcxpXLE4Myly6eOiBDtL0PT6MkC+QA4UdGMk+4+prTZ0dOiOUxdnj7NA9kwOFRs+ vUY5laf2YI19j3By07hzRU6XWU2pIrSuMQ+RmOsxjO1m36T+e46HW+XMIplv+HCjXUry w/Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532g1COd2Ul4f7qycieTEBaGXoKMRhVwIjpoiXinYLg4ldAmV8CS eVMBMRXG7kumCZ9hrVdzQdCJ8kAo5lwcIVu4ZOM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygipqfxHbsOwSGrUvfx7cCUYxWwX51oQK7KVVQKToKmch3R67o/g0BtfsEAcDPadvDKClEgSbarPfn3yC31g0=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cd8a:: with SMTP id r10mr4835254ilb.287.1627595093125; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Duke <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:44:42 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Ryan Sleevi <>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d306a05c84a036c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:45:01 -0000

So returning to my previous point, it seems rather heavyweight to update
the IANA registry every time this happens, and it would arguably be
efficient to assign a given operator a range so that these need not be
deconflicted in perpetuity?

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:36 PM Ryan Sleevi <> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:15 PM Salz, Rich <> wrote:
>>    - I'm not sure this is correct, Rich? Logs regularly rotate IDs;
>>    presently annually, but it's reasonable to anticipate more frequently as
>>    the size/performance tradeoffs, precisely as the way of pruning the storage.
>> Thanks for the correction!
>> So how do replying parties know the log ID changed?
> To be clear, the log ID doesn't change (and refer to the same log). Each
> Log ID uniquely identifies a log. For example, if a log changes a key, it's
> functionally a new log - this is true in 6962 as it is in 6962-bis. The
> only thing that changed in -bis is from identifying logs by key hashes to
> identifying by OIDs, which was meant to make for smaller encoding.
> The draft flags that the communication of LogIDs is fundamentally
> something that is done out-of-band -
> - i.e. up to client policy. For example, for two widespread 6962
> implementations (Apple's {mac, i, tv}OS and Google's Chrome), the list of
> recognized logs is governed by user agent/vendor policy, and those logs are
> communicated by the vendor (aka "Trusted Log Lists", although trust is a
> bit of a stretch)
>> And do we need to give Log’s not an ID but rather an arc?
> No. As with 6962, the idea here is not that "This log was ID X, and is now
> ID Y" - but rather "I know of a log with ID X, and I now know of a log with
> ID Y, and these are logically distinct, even if their contents are
> identical"