Gossiping in CT
draft-ietf-trans-gossip-05
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (trans WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2020-02-25 (latest revision 2018-01-14) | ||
| Replaces | draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Experimental | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Melinda Shore | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-03-16) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired (IESG: Dead) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | ||
| Send notices to | "Melinda Shore" <melinda.shore@gmail.com> | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-trans-gossip-05.txt
Abstract
The logs in Certificate Transparency are untrusted in the sense that the users of the system don't have to trust that they behave correctly since the behavior of a log can be verified to be correct. This document tries to solve the problem with logs presenting a "split view" of their operations or failing to incorporate a submission within MMD. It describes three gossiping mechanisms for Certificate Transparency: SCT Feedback, STH Pollination and Trusted Auditor Relationship.
Authors
Linus Nordberg
(linus@nordu.net)
Daniel Gillmor
(dkg@fifthhorseman.net)
Tom Ritter
(tom@ritter.vg)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)