On 3 October 2014 23:42, elijah <[email protected]> wrote: >> CT-style (I think we should call it CT-style to avoid confusion with >> Certificate Transparency proper for TLS certificates) > > I strongly prefer "auditable endorsements" since there are many > proposals for auditable endorsement systems, only one of which uses a > CT-style append-only log (for example, nyms, nicknym, DANE, DIME, > hallam-baker's PPE, dkg/tom's UEE). > > The term CT-style seems like it should be reserved for the class of > proposals that include some kind of append-only log used in a manner > similar to CT. We may see multiple CT-style proposals in the future (one > log per provider, one log per third party endorser, etc).
No argument with the distinction, but do "auditable endorsements" have enough commonality that they can be usefully lumped together? I think we mostly understand what is meant by "CT-like", but I don't really feel like I have a grip on what properties a generalised "auditable endorsement system" would have... _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
