By consistent I mean that if a sequence of STHs such as (A, B, C) are presented on day 1, that a different sequence is not presented on day 2 (A, C) or (A, D, B, C).
Rob's language works in term of chronological order. STH pollination could be a way to support auditing this, but I don't think it's sufficiently robust as currently defined. To prevent STHs from going missing, or for new STHs to appear after the fact, STHs should be exchanged along with metadata indicating the previous and (if it exists yet) the next STH in the tree. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM Andrew Ayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:20:47 +0000 > Nick Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm also in favor of this change. I would further suggest that this > > list be required to be consistent, monotonically increasing and that > > the results of this API be something that monitors exchange > > information about. > > Hi Nick, > > Could you explain what you mean by "consistent"? > > As for monotonically increasing, does the following language in Rob's > PR match what you mean? > > "These STHs SHALL be ordered chronologically by timestamp, oldest > first, beginning with the earliest STH in the specified range." > > The gossip draft defines an STH pollination mechanism that monitors can > use to exchange STHs that they observe. Would this work, or were you > thinking about something else? > > Regards, > Andrew >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
