Address what is stored on the ledger #335
Conversation
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
SteveLasker
requested review from
henkbirkholz,
ad-l,
fournet,
yogeshbdeshpande,
JAG-UK,
OR13 and
aj-stein-nist
as code owners
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
| The Append-only Log is the verifiable data structure that records integrity protection of the registered Signed Statements and supports the production of Receipts. | ||
| Transparency Services may provide ancillary services to store the contents of the Signed Statement, however the Append-only Log does not store the Signed Statement contents avoiding concerns of persisting personally identifiable information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope this is constructive, I apologize, it will be a longer comment and I cannot recommend surgical edits. I would hope that the WG, if we want to address #329, should be able to break down the requirements into the following, for clarity.
- What MUST a TS store in the ledger?
- What MAY at TS store in the ledger?
- What MUST NOT a TS store in the ledger?
As it stands, we are making progress in that direction, but it is written in prose form that is not liek the specification style we would need here in my opinion. Doing so would improve the ability for implementers to act on it.
Additionally, regarding "does not store the Signed Statement contents avoiding concerns of persisting personally identifiable information," it does not follow logically to me without further explanation, but that is probably best to avoid. Can it only be in the Signed Statement? Is PII the only concern, and not other forms of confidential information, why? (I recall some of the backstory here, but it is not explained at all in the text and I think that detracts from the value of writing it there in the first place.)
And a final concluding remark: "storing on ledger" is a murky concept and this change at the present time does not actually define what is being stored or how beyond the notion of VDS. To go back to my original 3-part question, I would argue we need to address that in this part or I am not sure if this addition will be constructive to implementers. I hope that feedback is helpful.
Fixes #329