Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TAP-17: Remove signature wrapper from TUF spec #138
TAP-17: Remove signature wrapper from TUF spec #138
Changes from all commits
be62a29
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should the POUF format be updated to include capturing the unique payload type for an implementation? Should we provide any guidance on forming payload type?
The spec should probably more strongly recommend capturing the implementation details in a POUF, especially the payload type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is probably a good idea. @mnm678 what do you think?
TAP-11 lists only the minimum fields a POUF must contain, so in theory it can be extended without changing the TAP, but it's probably worth adding a field. I also wonder if it's worth adding something to formally identify the implementations a POUF describes. POUF-1 identifies the python implementation, but does it also describe the Go implementation, for example? Should it link to them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure we can, since we're only saying the envelope should support an authenticated payload type, while each envelope format may enforce its own standard. Guidance here may run afoul of some signature wrapper that is otherwise compliant? I think the selection of a unique payload type that conforms to a particular wrapper's specification is sufficient, as long as it's recorded in the corresponding POUF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe it's worth referring to a survey of wrappers to understand their guidelines for payload types. We may be able to specify some aspects like "include information about encoding" without running into trouble.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, I think we could add payload type as a subsection of Formats in the POUF definition.
I would say the implementations should/could link to the POUF rather than the other way around. The implementation implements TUF plus some POUF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SGTM, I think we can file an issue against TAP 11 to discuss payload type once we merge this as draft.