>
> | 5.2.2
> |
> | "After retrieving the consistency proof to the most recent STH, they
> | SHOULD pollinate this new STH among participating HTTPS Servers {and
> may
> | safely discard the older STH}. "
>
> Unless it should be gossiped some more? We only know that it's correct
> with regard to the particular view of the log we're being served. I
> don't think we've decided when to stop gossiping about a particular STH
> yet.
>
The point is that the newer STH includes the older one (i.e. it proves the
log contains all the things the older one proved it contained), so there's
no value in retaining the older STH...
| 6.1.6
> |
> | "The log's inability to
> | provide either proof will not be externally cryptographically-
> | verifiable, as it may be indistinguishable from a network error.
> | {note that anyone who sees the whole log can independently prove
> | inconsistency/non-inclusion}"
>
> That's a monitor, isn't it?
>
> If we define everyone who keeps a copy of the log as a monitor, then yes.
Intuitively, a mirror is not a monitor, but still has a complete copy.
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
