On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 28 June 2015 at 16:05, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > IETF standards need to be unambiguous. Code is very helpful, but it is not a > > substitute > > for a rigorous description of how to resolve the issue that Onderj raised. > > Whilst I am not necessarily opposed to that, there has to be a point > at which you stop explaining what can be worked out given existing > information. The RFC does state how the hash is calculated, from which > it is clear what the placement of each node is in the hash > calculation.
s/it is clear/it is possible to determine/ I would be in favour of more clarity around exactly how the inclusion proof is represented; I recall having significant trouble comprehending how inclusion proofs "worked", and ended up examining existing operational logs and using trial and error to determine how the inclusion proof was presented. - Matt _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
