Skip to content

refactor: prepare the static CT client for a second tile format - #118

Merged
d-Rickyy-b merged 1 commit into
d-Rickyy-b:devfrom
mimi89999:second_tile_format
Oct 11, 2026
Merged

d-Rickyy-b merged 1 commit into
d-Rickyy-b:devfrom
mimi89999:second_tile_format

Conversation

@mimi89999

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

First step of #105 (comment)

@mimi89999
mimi89999 changed the base branch from master to dev October 3, 2026 18:49
@mimi89999

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@d-Rickyy-b could you please review this pull request?

@messede-degod

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

+1, i'm excited about this as well

@d-Rickyy-b d-Rickyy-b left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the long wait again, life is happening. The changes look good to me, I just have some minor complaints that need to get addressed.

Comment thread internal/certificatetransparency/ct-tiled.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/certificatetransparency/ct-tiled.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/certificatetransparency/ct-watcher.go Outdated
@d-Rickyy-b

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I know this PR is made in preparation for implementing "names tiles" support (#105). Allow me one additional general comment tho to prevent confusion further down the road.

certstream-server-go is not only used to obtain the actual certificates but also to collect metadata about the CAs - e.g. via the grafana dashboard. From my understanding, your goal eventually is that the server does not download any certificate until a client connects. Only then it will start downloading certificates.

I can understand why this makes sense for a lot of use cases. But there should be a configuration option to decide which of these two different approaches the user would like to use.

Same goes with features such as "deduplication" btw. As a client that only needs the certificate for monitoring new domains, deduplication is definitely beneficial. For clients that want to monitor CA activity, there should not be any deduplication. Otherwise we're missing out on some activity.

Apart from all that, thank you for the PR. Looks good now with the changes applied :)

@d-Rickyy-b
d-Rickyy-b merged commit 70d9e0b into d-Rickyy-b:dev Oct 11, 2026
1 check failed
@mimi89999
mimi89999 deleted the second_tile_format branch October 11, 2026 12:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants