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

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:44 PM Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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?
>

Isn’t that just reinventing PENs under a shorter arc, at that point?

In practice, what we see is log operators creating multiple logs at once
(e.g. for six annual shards), and then updating annually or semi-annually
to add new temporal shards.

So I’m not sure which part of the heavy handed is being optimized for,
mostly due to ignorance on my part: is the concern this is process
intensive on the IANA part, or the log operator part? If the log operator
sees this as intensive, then they’ve got the PEN route as a readily
deployable alternative (at the cost of larger messages). If it’s overhead
on the IANA part, then that would seem to argue scrapping the whole “too
clever and a half” idea of “use a short OID because, for historic reasons,
IANA has some”, and just pay the 4-10byte tax for using PENs.

>