@@ -1980,27 +1980,6 @@ <h2>Multiple Status Entries in a Single List</h2>
1980
1980
than fetching multiple status lists.
1981
1981
</ p >
1982
1982
1983
- < p class ="issue atrisk " title ="Efficiency argument is weak ">
1984
- The "space efficiency" argument for this feature is weak. One list with two types
1985
- of status entries must, presumably, be twice as long as a list with one type of
1986
- status entries, to ensure proper privacy protections. One privacy benefit of
1987
- doing so is that bit flips cannot be known to be associated with a particular
1988
- status unless one is also in control of the VC that the status is about.
1989
- Therefore, mixing "revocation" and "suspension" in a single list that is twice
1990
- as large has positive privacy implications.< br > < br >
1991
- The "retrieval efficiency" argument is also weak. Performing two HTTP retrievals
1992
- instead of one is probably not significant. Performing upwards of five or six,
1993
- on a list that is five or six times larger, might result in fairly meager
1994
- savings over modern versions of HTTP that bundle requests over a single channel
1995
- (such as HTTP/2 or HTTP/3). The requests themselves would save a handful of
1996
- bytes with no significant improvement in retrieval speed.< br > < br >
1997
- The Working Group is looking for feedback from implementers and is considering
1998
- striking this feature during the Candidate Recommendation period, since it would
1999
- simplify the specification for implementations to not have to support sets of
2000
- `statusPurpose` values in the status list credentials (again, a meager savings
2001
- in space efficiency at a small cost to retrieval efficiency).
2002
- </ p >
2003
-
2004
1983
< pre class ="example nohighlight "
2005
1984
title ="Associating multiple status entries in a single status list "
2006
1985
data-vc-vm ='https://example.edu/issuers/565049/keys/1 '>
0 commit comments