On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:44 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote:
> So returning to my previous point, it seems rather heavyweight to update > the IANA registry every time this happens, and it would arguably be > efficient to assign a given operator a range so that these need not be > deconflicted in perpetuity? > Isn’t that just reinventing PENs under a shorter arc, at that point? In practice, what we see is log operators creating multiple logs at once (e.g. for six annual shards), and then updating annually or semi-annually to add new temporal shards. So I’m not sure which part of the heavy handed is being optimized for, mostly due to ignorance on my part: is the concern this is process intensive on the IANA part, or the log operator part? If the log operator sees this as intensive, then they’ve got the PEN route as a readily deployable alternative (at the cost of larger messages). If it’s overhead on the IANA part, then that would seem to argue scrapping the whole “too clever and a half” idea of “use a short OID because, for historic reasons, IANA has some”, and just pay the 4-10byte tax for using PENs. >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
