IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Verifying inclusion proof

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Tue, 30 June 2015 12:30 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 A76A21A8785 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:34 -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 DRcipdIKF7kf for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x234.google.com (mail-vn0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::234]) (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 7146A1A8AEC for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so1247180vnb.11 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:32 -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=4qRItnoAE1Iai4FZaQymCeWMEAcbR1VIjVNqnTULZ9M=; b=A0jkYGK82yGrhPAz5QC1mCS+nkV2ao+jVOg1XYTo7JR5qhewohehnfON02/ls6a8bc 6TqAmEzBbUAe6E8UMagkAK58/VvgMKwuwpBM8P8zEUBHv1jNd1O0KaQyRI9eQa8Klaq9 9zmh1mlNYchtATNGpZWDsCKH8VhCy3PGezwMbLwoRZXnEkxh74k04nJ1Bw7NkAe6fqmf UeSAl93pTFp0GGzEtjOTMdaYkKzCiDmWu/UeQHWyJXzPjSoK95w2NK82+07FsVaFoD/H osnRCD4d6YcVIB1fRoF/xbxYqfd62ZJMe0P648uYmE2EH7jo/LRKeBGVWx8xurO6SwMX TuyQ==
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=4qRItnoAE1Iai4FZaQymCeWMEAcbR1VIjVNqnTULZ9M=; b=H3u/usXEMZrX0LUPUQ3zzEle3IkgEmSvlkjqYtHhKT0fZh5V5VR2rEzyXt/8xrTBJU Z7VAUrRbxT4krgU4KAHfGV0aFPwxVYKkPN3MeV0N0Z8byukP60yaFlmID0g8K9N/tbRc 0JJIKCvDhq3YF8qipJPwdvY1KEyq93Od/9q9Xx5bps5vW6N7jNWt+6jVTS5uvPnjH9/K whqnTvgs1XtKebgaLDvBt4bKolumysLUba5DC2ljvpY6v7I3Kbcu6pgPtCDznNaFeoGP yxhwz51r78bBXl2awDsUqlH3cMaHUvTrGETpnFuFalaZ415DqDsalAck7XbZSXcN6ONa eWsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXYDrx+6b1lMBT2PHp7XoFvePtn+AFrwSIRlgs4OhJl2rTxn4diqmT1Qw1493GhdVhBllE
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.14.7 with SMTP id l7mr19345779vdc.82.1435667432639; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.76.6 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150629230458.GX30545@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> <CABrd9SS7-dDYUhJkFe99YQ2EtdO6x10y=VOc4Qr6ERL+PZq0hQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150629230458.GX30545@hezmatt.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:30:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSwixBdaF38LS4zf6KSCOqk=VML1MBia+to=eBfPhcfkg@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/pF1Qc13OFxQMHh9PkzvEJ9_gSVY>
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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:30:34 -0000

On 30 June 2015 at 00:04, Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:29:47PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That document doesn't appear to be referenced in 6962bis, nor would it, I
> assume, answer the question "how is the inclusion proof represented in the
> response to get-sth-consistency".

Fair enough. Do you have proposed text?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email