Hi, Authors have closed the last remaining issue, other than the request for early allocation of code points.
The last remaining issue was: https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/issues/30 There was discussion about whether to try to create a symmetry between inclusion and consistency receipts for RFC 9162. After consulting with implementations, and reviewing the relevant RFCs: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9162#section-2.1.4.2 - https://github.com/transparency-dev/merkle/blob/main/proof/verify.go#L57 - https://github.com/transparency-dev/merkle/blob/main/proof/verify.go#L78 We've opted to not change ( or align these ) : - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-05#section-5.3.1-8 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-05#section-5.2.1-7 The reason being that implementations of CT and KT are likely based on the RFCs, and take as input: treeHead1, treeSize1, treeHead2, treeSize2, intermediateNodes It would require changes to the code to support verifying a detached payload consistency proof receipt... and these changes would need to be made, while breaking compatibility with RFC 9162 and RFC 6962. We do not believe that would lead to more interoperable implementations of COSE Receipts with the associated binary merkle tree as the verifiable data structure, and have closed the associated issue, after much discussion. We believe the draft is ready for WGLC. Regards, OS (on behalf of draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs authors / contributors)
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
