#156: Can inclusion proofs properly substitute SCTs?
Comment (by [email protected]): Sending multiple SCTs, multiple inclusion proofs and multiple STHs as separate TransItems would presumably mean added complexity for the client in terms of figuring out which ones go with which. To avoid that complexity, and to avoid unnecessarily increasing the handshake size, why don't we create a new "standalone_inclusion_proof" TransItem type that contains just the necessary fields for "SCT + Inclusion proof + STH"? -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/156#comment:4> trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
