Receipts

[hannestschofenig]

When the draft talks about receipts does it refers only to inclusion proofs. Can we still talk about receipts, if other proof types are supported by an implementation that those are still called Receipts?

[robinbryce]

I think it is meant to refer to this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/ at least as an example. And this defines receipts of inclusion and receipts of consistency

[SteveLasker]

Can we get a suggestion or PR for next steps?

[robinbryce]

I'm inclined to reduce the entry in Definitions to just the head line from "Definition of transparency" which says just - "Receipts demonstrate inclusion of Signed Statements in the Append-only Log of a Transparency Service". The particulars of how "inclusion is demonstrated" is very log specific. I'll put together a small diff and see how that looks

[robinbryce]

ah also, quite far down, where the draft describes "append only", it does introduce

"In addition to Receipts, some verifiable data structures might support additional proof types, such as proofs of consistency, or proofs of non inclusion"

I think a small amount of fore shadowing or re-arangement will do the trick

[SteveLasker]

Thanks, @robinbryce A PR would be great to review to formalize the discussion

[robinbryce]

PR added, but I think it warants some discussion regarding possible tension with the hard requirement for COSE-Receipts