Editorial Review #331
Open
Editorial Review #331
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
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
|
I moved the items covered in issues to separate PR |
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve lasker <[email protected]>
OR13
reviewed
Jan 7, 2025
| @@ -767,7 +764,7 @@ Client applications MAY request Receipts regardless of the identity of the Issue | |||
| When a Signed Statement is registered by a Transparency Service a Receipt becomes available. | |||
| When a Receipt is included in a Signed Statement a Transparent Statement is produced. | |||
|
|
|||
| Receipts are based on Signed Inclusion Proofs as described in COSE Signed Merkle Tree Proofs ({{-COMETRE}}) that also provides the COSE header parameter semantics for label 394. | |||
| Receipts are based on Signed Inclusion Proofs as described in COSE Signed Merkle Tree Proofs {{-COMETRE}} that also provides the COSE header parameter semantics for label 394. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Receipts are based on Signed Inclusion Proofs as described in COSE Signed Merkle Tree Proofs {{-COMETRE}} that also provides the COSE header parameter semantics for label 394. | |
| Receipts are based on Signed Inclusion Proofs as described in COSE Receipts {{-COMETRE}} that also provides the COSE header parameter semantics for label 394. |
OR13
reviewed
Jan 7, 2025
| @@ -593,6 +592,7 @@ The protected header of the COSE_Sign1 Envelope MUST include either the Issuer's | |||
| If `x5t` is included in the protected header, an `x5chain` with a leaf certificate corresponding to the `x5t` value MAY be included in the unprotected header. | |||
|
|
|||
| The Transparency Service MUST apply the Registration Policy that was most recently added to the Append-only Log at the time of Registration. | |||
| The Registration Policy used MUST be included in the Receipt. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The Registration Policy used MUST be included in the Receipt. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 for this change, the registration policy is already committed to via the tree + the requirement for transparency, this is a denormalisation tradeoff that makes receipts a little larger but adds to the audit burden.
OR13
requested changes
Jan 7, 2025
JAG-UK
requested changes
Jan 7, 2025
| @@ -593,6 +592,7 @@ The protected header of the COSE_Sign1 Envelope MUST include either the Issuer's | |||
| If `x5t` is included in the protected header, an `x5chain` with a leaf certificate corresponding to the `x5t` value MAY be included in the unprotected header. | |||
|
|
|||
| The Transparency Service MUST apply the Registration Policy that was most recently added to the Append-only Log at the time of Registration. | |||
| The Registration Policy used MUST be included in the Receipt. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The Registration Policy used MUST be included in the Receipt. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This topic has been discussed at length over the years and the group decided to tackle this detail later. Introducing this opens a huge can of worms and additional dependencies with COSE and so on, including the IPR disclosure on CCF receipts.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Removed content now tracked in separate PRs