diff --git a/signature_body.md b/signature_body.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f81533
--- /dev/null
+++ b/signature_body.md
@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your enhancement is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+- [ ] **Create an issue in keylime/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please ensure to complete all
+  fields in that template.  One of the fields asks for a link to the enhancement.  You
+  can leave that blank until this enhancement is made a pull request, and then
+  go back to the enhancement and add the link.
+- [ ] **Make a copy of this template.**
+ name it `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
+  leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
+- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary", and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the enhancement with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the enhancement clarified and merged quickly.  The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+-->
+# 77-signature_body: Attached signatures
+
+Utilise signature body in allow list for attached signatures. 
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your enhancement.  Keep it short, simple, and descriptive.  A good
+title can help communicate what the enhancement is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a enhancement and for
+highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard enhancement
+template.
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [User Stories (optional)](#user-stories-optional)
+    - [Story 1](#story-1)
+    - [Story 2](#story-2)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [keylime/enhancements] referencing this enhancement and targeting a release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Keylime i.e., [keylime/keylime], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to pull request in [keylime/enhancements]
+- [ ] Core members have approved the issue with the label `in-progress`
+- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] Test plan is in place
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [keylime/keylime-docs]
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal introduces a method to sign over the body of an allow-list
+and then attach a signature and public key ID or X509 certificate.
+
+It uses the same manifest layout as supply chain projects [intoto](https://in-toto.io/)
+and [The update framework](https://theupdateframework.io/).
+<!--
+This section is incredibly important for producing high quality user-focused
+documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap.  It should be
+possible to collect this information before implementation begins in order to
+avoid requiring implementers to split their attention between writing release
+notes and implementing the feature itself. Reviewers
+should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is
+useful for a wide audience.
+
+A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
+-->
+
+## Motivation
+
+The current implementation leverages seperate keys to the list itself. While
+suitable for some cases, it is also useful to have a single package where the
+list and the signature travel in the same payload.
+
+<!--
+This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of
+this enhancement.  Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users.
+-->
+
+### Proposal
+
+User produces a cryptographic signature by 'passing over' the body of an allow/exclude
+list. The signature and public key id (sha256 hash of pubKey), or an X509 cert (base64)
+are then attached to the allowlist.
+
+The verifier upon discovery of a `"signed"` body and `"signatures"` keys, will validate
+the `signed` section.
+
+This proposal borrows from the existing signing conventions
+established by the [intoto project](https://github.com/in-toto/docs/blob/master/in-toto-spec.md#4-document-formats).
+
+```json
+{
+    "signatures": [
+        {
+         "keyid": <KEYID>,
+         "keytype" : <KEYTYPE>,
+         "sig": <SIGNATURE>
+        }
+    ],
+    "signed": {
+        "meta": {
+        "version": 872
+        },
+        "release": 774.75,
+        "hashes": {
+        ",'Sr": []
+        },
+        "excludes": [],
+        "keyrings": {
+        "}": "xxx"
+        },
+        "ima": {
+        "ignored_keyrings": [],
+        "log_hash_alg": "xxx"
+        },
+        "ima-buf": {
+        "": "xxx"
+        },
+        "verification-keys": []
+    }
+}
+```
+#### signatures
+
+The `signatures`` section lists there json keys:
+
+##### keyid
+
+* keyid: The keyid can be one of two. 
+1. A sha256 hash of a public key (therefore acting as a map). This allows an out-of-band public key
+2. A base64 encoded X509 v3 certificate in PEM format. This is in-band and can be chained to CA for identity.
+
+For the first method (sha256 hash) the public key will be stored within the verifier at:
+
+`/var/lib/keylime/signing_keys/{hash-of-pubkey}.pkey`
+
+For the second method a store is not required, the public key can be extracted from the X509 certificate
+
+For a later stage, we can look to have a chain verification from the the signing cert to a CA.
+
+##### keytype
+
+keytype is a string denoting a public key signature system.
+
+We define three key types at present: "rsa", "ed25519", and "ecdsa".
+
+##### sig
+
+The `sig` section is a base64 encoded signature (see signed below for details around signature generation)
+
+#### signed
+
+The signed body contains all content that is to be signed.
+
+The signature functionality, extracts all characters (including whitespace) and encodes it to a base64 string
+
+A signature is then generated by signing the base64 string. This is then placed into `sig` section within the
+`signatures` body.
+
+### verification
+
+The verification flow, will play out as follows
+
+1. The verifier will check to see if the signature and signed bodies exist
+2. The verifier will either decode the x509 certificate and extract the public key, or will capture
+   the sha256 digest and load the mapped key from `/var/lib/keylime/signing_keys/{hash-of-pubkey}.pkey`
+3. The verifier will then perform a verification of the signature against the `signed` body
+4. If any of the steps above fail, then a verifier API will return a failure code.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this enhancement?  Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+No immediate plan to implement signing into the tenant and no extra flags are required,
+the verifier will check for the signature and signed body and only attempt to validate
+if they exist.
+
+### User Stories (optional)
+
+<!--
+Detail the things that people will be able to do if this enhancement is implemented.
+Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
+the system.  The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
+bogged down.
+-->
+
+I as a user would like to have attached signatures.
+
+#### Story 1
+
+#### Story 2
+
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (optional)
+
+<!--
+What are the caveats to the proposal?
+What are some important details that didn't come across above.
+Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
+This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
+-->
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate.  Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+enhancement ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed and by whom?
+-->
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable.  This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets.  If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
+- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
+- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?
+
+No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy.  Anything
+that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly
+challenging to test should be called out.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations).
+-->
+
+Unit test will be provided to verify serialization of json input and 
+signature verification.
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this enhancement
+-->
+
+### Dependency requirements
+
+<!--
+If your new change requires new dependencies, please outline and demonstrate that your selected dependency 
+is well maintained and packaged in Keylime's supported Operating Systems (currently Debian Stable
+and as of time writing Fedora 32/33). 
+
+During code implementation you will also be expected to add the package to CI , the keylime ansible role and 
+keylimes main installer (`keylime/installers.sh`).
+
+If the package is not available in the supported Operated systems, the PR will not be merged into master. 
+
+Adding the package in `requirements.txt` is not sufficent for master which is where we tag releases from. 
+
+You may however be able to work within an experimental branch until a package is made available. If this is
+the case, please outline it in this enhancement.
+
+-->
+
+No new dependencies will be required. 
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this enhancement _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider and why did you rule them out?  These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things infrastructure related specific to your enhancement.  Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, github webhook, changes to CI (travis).
+-->