Gossiping in CT
draft-ietf-trans-gossip-05
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(trans WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Linus Nordberg , Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Tom Ritter | ||
| Last updated | 2020-02-25 (Latest revision 2018-01-14) | ||
| Replaces | draft-linus-trans-gossip-ct | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| 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 | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | ||
| Send notices to | "Melinda Shore" <melinda.shore@gmail.com> |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Tom Ritter
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)