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

Sources data model #11

Merged
merged 12 commits into from Dec 6, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@vabd
Copy link
Member

vabd commented Nov 20, 2018

No description provided.

@vabd vabd added scsp:review and removed scsp:wip labels Nov 20, 2018

@vabd vabd requested a review from Informo/informo-core-team Nov 23, 2018

@vabd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

vabd commented Nov 23, 2018

Some elements I missed to include in this SCS:

  • The location of sub-sources in trust networks.
  • A section on client implementations behaviours.

I'll add these later on.

It might also be interesting to notice that the events properties that are related to signatures might be inconsistent with the naming in other parts of the specs. Basically, we're waiting on #7 (i.e. figuring out whether relying on Matrix's cryptographic features to sign our events is possible) to be complete before harmonising this whole part of the specs and adding some technical details and advices on signature generation.

@GordonF42
Copy link
Member

GordonF42 left a comment

I propose we add a LocalisedString object, that maps language code to string text, to use for some source fields like name & description, and eventually other fields or other events' fields.

We also need to add a section about source fields that can be overridden by sub-source fields (namely website and description, and custom being implementation dependant)

Also I haven't seen anything about the network.informo.source event being signed by the source user. My first idea was to sign the event using one of the source's previous keys (or any key if it's the first source event), but it requires fetching the entire state event history in order to check if a source event is correctly signed.

Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
@vabd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

vabd commented Nov 28, 2018

Also I haven't seen anything about the network.informo.source event being signed by the source user. My first idea was to sign the event using one of the source's previous keys (or any key if it's the first source event), but it requires fetching the entire state event history in order to check if a source event is correctly signed.

From what I remember from our discussions about this, we concluded that the network.informo.source event wasn't containing signatures of itself generated by TAs. Instead, each TA must hold a signature of the latest registration event of every source it trusts. Otherwise, it would make having the case of having a source trusted by more that one TA nightmarish. This means that this piece of info belongs to an upcoming SCS focused on TAs.

@vabd vabd requested a review from Informo/informo-core-team Nov 29, 2018

@vabd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

vabd commented Nov 29, 2018

The SCS should be ready for another review. Please let me know if you think of anything to add under "Client implemetations behaviours regarding sources".

Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved content/information-distribution/source.md Outdated
@vabd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

vabd commented Dec 4, 2018

All of your concerns should have been addressed now.

@vabd vabd requested a review from Informo/informo-core-team Dec 4, 2018

@GordonF42
Copy link
Member

GordonF42 left a comment

Looks good for me :)

@vabd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

vabd commented Dec 6, 2018

🎉 🎉 🎉

@vabd vabd merged commit 4d051d5 into master Dec 6, 2018

@vabd vabd added the scsp:merged label Dec 6, 2018

@vabd vabd removed the scsp:review label Dec 6, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment