IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof

Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> Sun, 28 June 2015 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
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 683811B2F66 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.455
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 bColt06ek4WA for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hezmatt.org (minotaur.hezmatt.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:121:3431:e2e4:22bb:25f5:6cad]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E8A1B2F5C for <trans@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mistress.home.hezmatt.org (2001-44b8-3196-7300-e055-d787-231a-c54b.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:3196:7300:e055:d787:231a:c54b]) by mail.hezmatt.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73886686EA for <trans@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mistress.home.hezmatt.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B6A09FE13; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:06:48 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:06:48 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: trans@ietf.org
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SQV6tybHwgo=ZATEPjhsV64=5=O-fi10pcwHnAHCyArDA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/bLfz2aZ5o7BjEZ_jtAVM8qnv4Rw>
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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:06:56 -0000

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.

- Matt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email