On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:44:46 +0100 Linus Nordberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> The gossip protocol should work for both CT v1 and CT v2. If it > doesn't, we should fix that. If that's not possible, let's define a > gossip protocol version two. The sth-pollination protocol defined in draft-ietf-trans-gossip-04 could work with v1 STHs, but section 8.2.4 says it contains an array of v2 STHs: "sths - an array of 0 or more fresh SignedTreeHeads as defined in [RFC-6962-BIS-09] Section 3.6.1." For this reason, I've been implementing draft-ietf-trans-gossip-00, which uses v1 STHs and uses the URL .well-known/ct/v1/sth-pollination. Should I be using the URL defined in -04 instead? Incidentally, -04 is not entirely clear how STHs are represented. RFC6962-bis no longer defines a JSON representation for STHs. Instead STHs are returned in JSON responses as base64-encoded SignedTreeHeads. Does this mean that the sth-pollination protocol should use a JSON array of strings, possibly mixed with JSON objects for v1 STHs? Regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
