Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Clean up language - #119
Conversation
erickt
commented
Sep 24, 2020
- Switch many cases of must, optional to MUST, OPTIONAL to match RFC-2119.
- Change Freeze-Attack to use MUST instead of "should".
- Update links to https://theupdateframework.io
- Fix some typos.
- Standardize convention from "(if any)" to ", if any," since that was more common.
- Switch from "Check signatures" to "Check or an arbitrary software attack".
* Switch many cases of must, optional to MUST, OPTIONAL to match RFC-2119. * Change Freeze-Attack to use MUST instead of "should". * Update links to https://theupdateframework.io * Fix some typos. * Standardize convention from "(if any)" to ", if any," since that was more common. * Switch from "Check signatures" to "Check or an arbitrary software attack".
The rest of the TUF spec refers to each part of the document as $SECTION.$STEP. This updates the application workflow to also include the section number. This disambiguates referring to "2.2" from either referring to the "Thread Model and Analysis" from checking for a timestamp rollback attack.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the clean up, @erickt! The section number prefix in the client workflow steps IMHO is really helpful.
I took the liberty to rebase this PR on the recently updated master, which now includes #111, #116, #117 and a quick hotfix for the release checker script (d4c2f4b).
While rebasing I updated the version number and resolved some conflicts, and I also added a commit that fixes some references to sections whose numbers changed here (and in #116).
Here is the diff of your original branch and my updated and forced-pushed version of it.
Maybe you or someone else (@mnm678, @joshuagl) can take a quick look and (re-)green-light this.
| } | ||
| where PUBLIC is in PEM format and a string. All RSA keys must be at least | ||
| where PUBLIC is in PEM format and a string. All RSA keys MUST be at least |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand why, but do we actually enforce this? Do we reject RSA public keys that correspond to private keys < 2048 bits?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIK we do not in the reference implementation.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Update references to adopt section and step number changes in: - theupdateframework#116, which added a "persist root metadata" step and thus pushed back the "check freeze attack" step; and in - a recent commit that added the section number as prefix to all steps of the client workflow. Co-authored-by: Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy <trishank.kuppusamy@datadoghq.com>
lukpueh
commented
Sep 30, 2020
Thanks for taking another look, @erickt and @trishankatdatadog! I added your suggestion and also cherry-picked your related #123, @trishankatdatadog! |