IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad)

Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name> Tue, 09 May 2017 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <agwa@andrewayer.name>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFEA12954D for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewayer.name
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 pvDQTRfy3PJ8 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alcazar.beanwood.com (alcazar.beanwood.com [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:6c::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 981BE128896 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=andrewayer.name; s=beanwood20160511; t=1494355044; bh=WGLPBNvXokjjYZzB1N3285Ci/0qTymicCWqs9Jebtug=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=J9jP2eCiSrAbc1RmPdzU1LGCGv60QnPFXCsHiZQn4SLAgRKIAJDUFEuDtr0AwYzVx vtfSY0nSGXATJQmpgcmTiUZMOhWz6oOr1JNd997G3Rpvkqd2tdcemxZKMi3AK18nmP 9gSZkWgffa4AqOnJv0WAuSxA1OZgZeCqS19MwYPlY4fjqmG8U6rFH4avQMel7KYsGK jOIUpRnGn1GGcwiBxjSvzI9/u1Vx+H45YXx8yMHi0Sk6U92M0CCBQ/ib626+V9nEPG SYmE1DVymfEUANPJrTWHzzZt90zcmWOneqhzsU4DJd1mY4AQhVrl/cF5UukB3co+9w 27A7/Ukv1x2uA==
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:37:23 -0700
From: Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
To: Al Cutter <al@google.com>
Cc: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>, Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <20170509113723.fe6bb0f2ef39dd120ebf353d@andrewayer.name>
In-Reply-To: <CACM=_OdeG+i6puK5R0r1DFcaSp7=yhRgF2zguuGpGNYdF=f1nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170508111141.2ad103252b01cf48b5e988c8@andrewayer.name> <87pofjj6xd.fsf_-_@nordberg.se> <20170508161443.be44c605e67bec0feeb50e3a@andrewayer.name> <CALzYgEe=cD1TMWh5H0bERTSNVAFjzGQ=N4xOL6oLfbQHPvZ_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CACM=_OdeG+i6puK5R0r1DFcaSp7=yhRgF2zguuGpGNYdF=f1nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/vuJTJ5o5ufMQxbjSaHiVcyIgHz0>
Subject: Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad)
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 May 2017 18:37:27 -0000

On Tue, 9 May 2017 19:28:54 +0100
Al Cutter <al@google.com> wrote:

> > This is a viable solution to the problem of deterministic
> > signatures, though, so it should be mentioned in -bis.
> > How about requiring returning the same signature for the same SCT /
> > STH, without requiring the use of deterministic signature schemes?
> >
> 
> At least for SCTs this is not a good idea; if you require this, then
> by implication you also require a strongly consistent global queue
> with deduping for putting the to-be-sequenced leaves into. That's
> certainly one way of building a log, but there are others, and not
> everyone's got Spanner :)
> 
> Incidentally this is why RFC6962 says  'the log ... MAY return the
> same SCT as it returned before'; I'd imagine most log implementations
> will generally do this because it makes sense from the operators' PoV
> of controlling growth, but there may be situations when they can't
> guarantee it.

Ah, good point.

Maybe we should only require same/deterministic signatures for STHs.
As Tom and Linus have discussed, that's where same/deterministic
signatures are the most needed anyways.

Regards,
Andrew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email