Hi Melinda,
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the concerns that we are proposing
can in fact be plausibly addressed by post-hoc mechanisms on top of
the 6962-bis structure. To be precise, one might build either:
(a) A system which is not publicly verifiable in which case EEs would
only need to handle and provide SCTs and one can and should
dispense with much of the Merkle hash tree infrastructure.
(b) A system in which is publicly verifiable in which case the
current Merkle hash tree infrastructure seems inadequate and
would need to be revised, not just built on top of.
Either of these seem like reasonable WG decisions (though the
charter pretty clearly contemplates (b)) but the current draft
doesn't really do either. For that reason, I don't think it makes
sense to just proceed as-is. Typically for last call comments
of this magnitude the process would be to discuss them at the
next IETF. Accordingly, rather than pubreq the draft now,
we'd ask for agenda time to discuss in Chicago.
-Ekr
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi, all:
>
> We've been looking at the discussion and trying to figure
> out next steps. Because we believe that the mechanisms
> Richard's asking for can be built on top of what's specified
> in 6962-bis, we've decided that we're going to
> continue progressing the document towards publication,
> and look to Richard and EKR to produce a draft specifying
> a mechanism that meets their requirements with the intent
> of adopting it as a working group deliverable.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melinda
>
>
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
