-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
Trust anchors and pivots 00005 #21
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Trust anchors and pivots 00005 #21
Conversation
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.
One tiny spelling correction. Otherwise, this makes a lot of sense to me. Good to codify these definitions.
…st-pivot-introduction 00005 had already been taken. :-(
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.
Please format according to:
https://github.com/enarx/rfcs/blob/master/contributing.md#how-to-propose-an-rfc
rfc#00006-trust-pivot-introduction
Outdated
### Trust pivot | ||
A trust pivot is a component which allows a trust relationship | ||
from one entity to another to be transferred, or added, to another | ||
entity. The validity of the pivot assumes the existence of one or more trust anchors. |
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.
Would it be possible to get an example here? The CA example above made the description more clear. But after reading this I am still not clear on how the trust pivot would work.
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've provided a couple. Please let me know what you think.
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.
@MikeCamel Thanks! That works well.
Added examples of trust pivots Clarified trust pivot definition
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.
My comments have been addressed.
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ | |||
# 00006 Trust anchors and pivots |
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.
The RFC number here is different than the RFC number in the title of this PR.
relationship to a trust anchor is assumed - based on the endorsing | ||
authority - rather than derived. One example of a trust anchor |
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.
Let's drop the hyphens and add the word "it" to the end of the sentence, so:
"is assumed based on the endorsing authority rather than derived from it."
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 having trouble putting it together @connorkuehl, could you use the built-in suggestion tool to suggest a diff/patch? (<ctrl+g> apparently)
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.
Lots of interesting ideas and food for thought. I think i'm not the only one for whom more non-technical examples would be helpful, to better grasp the difference between anchors and pivots. I think adding a section that more clearly defines how these two articulate would be very helpful!
relationship to a trust anchor is assumed - based on the endorsing | ||
authority - rather than derived. One example of a trust anchor |
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 having trouble putting it together @connorkuehl, could you use the built-in suggestion tool to suggest a diff/patch? (<ctrl+g> apparently)
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.
LGTM
Edit: Assuming the commits will be squashed.
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.
Content looks good, but it needs a rebase and organizational changes (numbering, according to #22).
Was incorrectly named (@axelsimon came in with a 00004 before I submitted this).
First draft.