Note that ARPKI <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2660298> (among other academic CT variants) similarly has no need for gossip; roughly, monitors sign that they have seen a cert and then clients just verify the signatures. Multisignatures sound like an elegant way to achieve that; are they more efficient than *n* individual signatures for smallish cothorities e.g. size <10?
I've never quite understood why CT mandates gossip instead of having monitors sign that they have seen an STH. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to clarify that point? Until there's running code proving such a deployment is feasible > (particularly finding willing parties to run the independent monitors and > issuing SCTs within an acceptable timeframe) I don't see how the discussion > around this idea being a viable altern > > ative to gossip can progress. > This seems to be a chicken-and-egg problem, since Google is the motivating force behind CT. I don't see why independent monitors would want to try out alternatives just in case someone at Google decides that maybe they'll be used. Katriel
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
