Andrew Ayer <[email protected]> wrote Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:48:32 -0700:
> 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." Hmm. It seems like CT v1 has been ignored in the transition to 6962-bis. > 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? I don't know right now. Suggestions welcome! Well, I guess your question is a suggestion. Analysis welcome, as well as proposed text of course. :) Also, very happy to see implementation under way! _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
