[Trans] Further comments on RFC 6962

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 10 March 2014 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AB11A04B0 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6nGqjsoqo2f for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8511A04A6 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 10so4952497lbg.21 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KnSwByzaLh5jAZjEd9cJW1sL3fRRFEDhzSOtZyY5uzI=; b=ZWtgjcPKyGCQtxXLvroqlBjfO1QEI4qnw06l7pluk6dkPg2luevLUBstrBpjq1SNHT nN4hQw5w9ipKWl9fPcRtJ9DsRlWiAaE1bgXWveDN9PMQEpJzWOiEkYphOUfl4kgl3x5j cwXgzwhWGOls7vABgHzpbxFJD5dqMGI6vGnnxbAL0bN25kPtOorml0gAAQmHlgzO8uJJ A5fDRPNBP4dn/ap5Ohcez6VXkL2dERNZfRF+ZD8a0O1vRSPNhpU1XO+VSixhRv9fpAiL 02mzwM3E61xvP3LOuDdj2mxpbV8sNwv1+z6nKUgkhb8/1AnAxTk3n3YjuatO+0kuW1br e3Mg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id qh3mr128714lbc.55.1394485131135; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:58:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhpCD9gf_XJUTsKBo3739jOeiHdedqWwi3b0jkeZkSo8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135f56ee2ce5904f446de46"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/kUWiz5SEjhTjFIdgTnSmIO2YDkg
Subject: [Trans] Further comments on RFC 6962
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 10 Mar 2014 20:59:00 -0000

Following on from my last one that went out early...

2) The transactions add-chain and add-pre-chain only differ in the type of
the data being exchanged. It would be more general to change the signature
of the request message so that it had an explicit 'data type'

3) Shouldn't it be possible for a service to manage multiple logs? I would
think this particularly important in the case of a retrieve-only log which
is serving multiple logs. But the same point can be made about the add

4) sha256_root_hash.

Really? This should be an object that has an algorithm/data pair. Encoding
the algorithm into the tag is going to make algorithm agility hard.

5) 'in decimal'

This phrase crops up repeatedly and I don't think it means what is
intended. All JSON integers are encoded in base 10. Using the term 'in
decimal' is confusing as it is distinct from 'as a decimal'

Integer    42       // An integer value in base ten
Decimal   3.14    // A decimal fraction

6) The tree_size of the first tree, in decimal.

In this context, tree_length would probably be easier to see the context.

7) https://<log server>/ct/v1/get-sth-consistency does not specify if the
first and second tree_size identifiers are ordered or not.

It is likely to result in problems if servers assume first > second or
first < second. Either an order should be specified or there should be an
explicit statement that it does not matter.

8) 0-based index

Not clear to me from the reference section if this is a byte count or an
object count. It should not be necessary to hunt through the spec to find
out which.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/