[Trans] Three open issues then we're done

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

This is taken from Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS ballot; it can be found within https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/ I’d like input from the WG, but all three items require input from Ben.

In 2.1.4.1 “Generating a Consistency Proof”:

>   If m <= k, the right subtree entries D[k:n] only exist in the current
>   tree.  We prove that the left subtree entries D[0:k] are consistent
>   and add a commitment to D[k:n]:
>
>   SUBPROOF(m, D_n, b) = SUBPROOF(m, D[0:k], b) : MTH(D[k:n])
>
>This 'b' is always 'false', right?

Does “this b” mean the one on the right-hand side of the equal sign?  And if so, does the WG have an answer to the question?

I believe this refers to the table in 5.5 “Retrieve Merkle Inclusion Proof, Signed Tree Head and Consistency Proof by Leaf Hash”:

>Similarly, we talk about "index of requested hash", which is at least
>unambiguous (IIUC), but we don't give a description of how the server
>could/should determine.

I think this is up to the implementation and need not be documented. Does anyone disagree with that?

On 11.1, “Misissued Certificates” Ben wrote:

>This seems to be making some unstated assumptions, including perhaps
>that someone has actually submitted the misissued certificate in
>question to a log (in order to support the claim that the maximum time
>it can be used without audit is twice the MMD).

I don't see the assumptions, can you give more details? In particular, I don't see the "perhaps someone submitted" assumption.
I can’t do anything without more input.