search

davidben / merkle-tree-certs

Other
9 stars 4 forks source link

Mention canonical STHs in acknowledgements or so #19

Open davidben opened 1 year ago

davidben commented 1 year ago

@bifurcation reminded me at IETF that this draft shares a lot of properties with the canonical STHs proposal. We should mention it in acknowledgements—apologies, that was not an intentional omission! I suspect it was just so long ago that we just forgot the original inspiration that schemes of that flavor. 🙃

bifurcation commented 1 year ago

FWIW, I think the way the CT version of this tended to be labeled was "STH discipline", in the sense that STH issuance would be "disciplined" to a schedule, so that relying parties would know exactly which tree heads they needed to hold on to. See, e.g.: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/ct-policy/c/dqFtoFBy8YU/m/Xa67FWVCEgAJ

bifurcation commented 1 year ago

BTW, my intent bringing this up in the TLS session wasn't to claim credit, just to make sure that this wasn't going to get tripped up by the same stuff that tripped up STH discipline!

devonobrien commented 1 year ago

No, thanks so much for bringing it up! STH discipline should definitely be mentioned in the doc as prior art / inspiration. Using MTCs as an optimization with a separate fallback is what allows us to use the concept at the core of STH discipline and extend it without falling into the same catch 22.