Skip to content

Is multi-role delegation in 1.0.0 or not? #140

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

Open
trishankatdatadog opened this issue Dec 10, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Is multi-role delegation in 1.0.0 or not? #140

trishankatdatadog opened this issue Dec 10, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member

In the current version of the spec, we say:

5.5.6.2.1. If the current delegation is a multi-role delegation, recursively visit each role, and check that each has signed exactly the same non-custom metadata (i.e., length and hashes) about the target (or the lack of any such metadata).

But nowhere else do we actually define how to specify multi-role delegations. Did we: (1) forget to specify how multi-role delegations are listed (since they are backwards-incompatible), or (2) did we agree not to release them as part of 1.0.0, and this is leftover text intended for 2.0.0?

@mnm678
Copy link
Collaborator

mnm678 commented Dec 10, 2020

IIRC the current version of the spec does not support TAP3 (multi-role delegations), so this text is probably left over from before that decision, and should be re-added in version 2.x.x. See discussion in #93

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for checking, Marina. Too bad we missed this piece of text back then, but better late than never.

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member

lukpueh commented Dec 11, 2020

As a reminder, I pointed out the stray nature of this piece of text a year ago (see #57 (comment)), when we decided that TAP 3 should not be part of 1.0.0, given that apart from that text and the claim that the spec adhered to TAP 3 there was no mention of it.

We also discussed this in the course of a community meeting (see meeting notes about "Versioning") and I removed the corresponding claim in #93 before tagging 1.0.0. It looks like back then we did not not find it necessary to remove said piece of text in the client workflow. Maybe because it does not necessarily make the spec inconsistent? But I agree it is quite surprising to talk about multi-role delegations out of nowhere.

So I'm not against removing it now, we just have to be careful when propagating the changes back into the draft branch, because it already contains a full adoption of TAP 3 (#57), with a slightly modified version of that text, which in itself is not fully TAP 3 compliant (see b46dc5e).

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member Author

Concur @lukpueh

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants