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

Ryan Sleevi <> Thu, 29 July 2021 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4373A0068 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySQ_P8qLmLKX for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631043A00C8 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q2so8565271plr.11 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=KWD5f/vqal/F/+iN2RH32Rf0pt+t+aOOlspaNC8GoHA=; b=rpZ6rFGKaNleI3nzvbzOdxfYNBiAi224LYgqJfa1x17qY8w6zrrhGkVTehueWEKhNn VhFVIYhhQ3uH9PO4KRYlS1UEgDAfL8rXQIZx+Mc2Aa7DPhiwRgdoLYO8SlfUDENn4OJq AQboh6iD3Z32bDq84nSkuK+l+wR1CRTeCqtXkGQrirXmtTDPu/7Ts89TnhkhDYnXZX9y xxtaYJ0dIxPxBcpSHyMXBnhIAw8j+06jxjkRjiO08MCNzvq6Djik6rEi+nnI6TfqKRcu LfGJusa65qGj/WvRxzCEMfHp/HfBVfsYSOfgPFwGZZAVCusOme68kCDW/6NG984vhI0L Q7qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/pY096JT2SSp16msc9qzGePNR3JxsiELx5Y8cRpH+eDDup3zp ma4l1ah22a0JOB8knjWUW7g5MdpyLG0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz39vmobsyf6tr5lQwlkhUOQfNiscO76acqedafL8rk7ddbH30fTGjVEg/xMS51BGIJBv71Lg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:874c:0:b029:39a:56d1:6d42 with SMTP id g12-20020aa7874c0000b029039a56d16d42mr7240920pfo.58.1627595448410; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q9sm5159996pgt.65.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c16so8571382plh.7 for <>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d112:b029:12c:2004:981d with SMTP id w18-20020a170902d112b029012c2004981dmr6432419plw.29.1627595447779; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ryan Sleevi <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:50:37 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Duke <>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <>, "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080c5f905c84a185b"
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 21:51:00 -0000

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:44 PM Martin Duke <> 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.