On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 08:27:39AM +0100, Grégoire Détrez wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 at 15:21, Rasmus Dahlberg <rgdd(a)glasklarteknik.se> wrote:
>
> > $ echo "witness.stagemole.eu+67f7aea0+BEqSG3yu9YrmcM3BHvQYTxwFj3uSWakQepafafpUqklv"
> > | sigsum-key from-vkey -v
> > Key name "witness.stagemole.eu", key type: 0x04 (cosignature/v1)
> > ssh-ed25519
> > AAAAC3NzaC1lZDI1NTE5AAAAIEqSG3yu9YrmcM3BHvQYTxwFj3uSWakQepafafpUqklv sigsum
> > key
> >
> > Looks well-formed and with the right type!
> >
>
> 🎉 🎉 🎉
>
> > > Starting with the testing list sounds good (staging is not open yet).
> >
>
> I was wondering about this: does it mean we'll need to pull both the test
> list and the (selected) staging list in the future?
Good question -- the test list is intentionally a bit YOLO so I'd say
it's ok that you stop configuring it and instead switch to staging
later. If anyone has a different take I'd be curious to hear it!
>
> I'm intending to add
> >
> > | Mullvad VPN AB | [testing/log-list.1][] | <
> > https://witness.stagemole.eu/about> |
> >
> > to the testing witness table here:
> >
> > https://witness-network.org/witness-tables/
> >
> > Just waiting for the about page to be ready -- so let me know when it is!
> >
>
> Ready now ☑️
Just queued you up in the testing table -- you can see the status here:
https://github.com/transparency-dev/witness-network/pull/18
>
>
> > Yep, correct. And I'd say a likely way this turns out is if we, e.g.,
> > have a
> > 1qps list then the 10qps is probably having the 1qps list as a subset. So
> > basically, as a witness operator you'd select the highest profile your
> > able to
> > accomodate, and we as maintainers will do our best to direct logs to the
> > different lists without hogging all the capacity. So for example, we would
> > definitely not put a 1qps log on the 1qps list, since then it's full. :-)
>
>
> Thanks, that does make it clearer! (Sounds like a fun allocation
> problem 🤓)
Fantastic, thanks for asking the questions!
-Rasmus
>
> Grégoire
