From f8d61a93109656e89cbbdeae56ca778127a0eafe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rasmus Dahlberg Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 15:36:29 +0100 Subject: moved some persisted pads to proposal directory See doc/proposals/2022-01-how-to-use-proposal-folder for details. --- archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint | 90 --------------------------- 1 file changed, 90 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint (limited to 'archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint') diff --git a/archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint b/archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint deleted file mode 100644 index 3123e02..0000000 --- a/archive/2022-01-04-proposal-add-leaf-endpoint +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -Proposal: change add-leaf endpoint - -Background ---- -Right now a log returns HTTP status 200 OK if it will "try" to merge a submitted -leaf into its Merkle tree. A submitter should not assume that logging happened -until they see an inclusion proof that leads up to a (co)signed tree head. - -If a submitted leaf does not show up in the log despite seeing HTTP status 200 -OK, the submitter must resubmit it. When a resubmission is required/expected is -undefined. - -The reason for this "try" behavior is that log operations become much easier, -especially in self-hosted environments that do not rely on managed databases. -In other words, it is OK to just be "pretty sure" that a submitted leaf will be -persisted and sequenced, and "100%" sure after sequencing actually happened. - -Proposal ---- -A log should not return HTTP status 200 OK unless: -1. The submitted leaf has been sequenced as part of a persisted database. -2. The next tree head that the log signs will contain the submitted leaf. - -HTTP status 3XX is returned with, e.g., "Error=leaf has not been sequenced yet" -if it is not guaranteed that the submitted leaf has been sequenced. - -This means that logging should be assumed after seeing HTTP status 200 OK. This -assumption will be confirmed when the submitter obtains the next (co)signed tree -head. Further investigation is required if it turns out that this assumption is -false. - -Notes ---- -An earlier draft of this proposal considered if useful debug information should -be returned, such as "leaf index", "leaf hash", and "estimated time until a -cosigned tree head is available". We decided to not go in this direction to -avoid redundant and unsigned output that may be mis-used and tampered with ("not -consistent with design"). - -(Note that it is easy to determine when the next cosigned tree head will be -available. The to-sign tree head has a timestamp, and it is rotated every 300s. -Then it takes an additional 300s before the to-sign tree head is served with -collected cosignatures.) - -An earlier draft of this proposal also considered to have verifiable output: - * Option 1: An inclusion proof and a signed tree head - * Option 2: An inclusion proof and a cosigned tree head - -This could be a worthwhile direction if the submitter can only obtain the -required data by using the add-leaf endpoint, thus "forcing resubmits until the -desired output is obtained". Credit to Al Cutter who proposed this (very nice) -idea to us a while back. - -It is not appropriate to always return an inclusion proof for a signed tree -head. What we want is for submitters to get inclusion proofs that reference -cosigned tree heads. - -There are drawbacks to replace the above signed tree head with a cosigned tree -head: - * A submitter that submits multiple leaves will likely (have to?) retrieve - the same cosigned tree head multiple times via the add-leaf endpoint. That - overhead adds up. - * A submitter will have to be in a "resubmit phase" for several minutes as - the default, because it takes time before a cosigned tree head becomes - available. - * (The most sensible implementation would likely resubmit periodically, - say, once per minute. A clever implementation would look at the - timestamp of the to-sign endpoint to determine when is the earliest time - that a merged may have happened.) - -Moreover, removing the get-inclusion-proof and get-tree-head-cosigned endpoints -to force usage of add-leaf excludes (or makes for wonky) usage patterns of the -log: - * "I just want to download all cosigned tree heads to archive them" -> add - leaves. - * "I just want to debug/know that the log is committed to have the leaf - logged, and rely on other witnesses" -> still forced to observe the log's - cosignatures. - * "I want an inclusion proof to a particular tree head" -> build the Merkle - tree yourself to construct that proof. The log's API chooses tree heads for - you. - * (Keeping these endpoints in addition to any new add-leaf output would to - some degree defeat the purpose of adding output, which is why it is not - considered an option.) - -In gist, we decided to go with a solution that is somewhere in between what we -did before and what Al Cutter proposed. We defined when a resubmission is (not) -expected. As a result, a self-hosted log may return at least one HTTP 3XX for -each leaf request, and a few seconds later return HTTP status 200 OK for the -same input data. -- cgit v1.2.3