Signed-off-by: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@gmail.com>

Hi I would like to be part of the Maintainers team:
affiliation: Sylabs / Singularity
email: eduardo@sylabs.io

Join Maintainers

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

Docker's use of Bearer requires information beyond what's covered in
RFC 6749 and 6750 [1].  Folks writing a client that will interact with
a Docker registry that uses that auth approach will need a "Docker
registry's 'Bearer' additions" spec to follow, but Derek believes the
situation is salvageable with external work [2].

Also pin the docker/registry links to a specific version so the links
will survive future docker/registry changes (including removing the
docs after the OCI picks them up).  As long as the TOB-selected
version isn't far behind (how far will the spec move during a week of
voting?), it should be easy for the new maintainets to catch up on any
subsequent drift.

The signing scope is from Stephen in [3].  The discovery scope is from
Derek [4].  The content-management scope is from Stephen [5] and Liang
[6].

This commit also add's Mike's interoperability statement [7], which
mentions one reason for the OCI inclusion is the
implementation-agnostic location where implementers can collaborating
on a common specification.  The project scoping is open to drift with
the limits imposed by the TOB's scope table.  If the TOB thinks
subsequent drift is excessive, they are free to make further
scope-table adjustments in follow-up proposals.

I've also added Mike's library/busybox scoping example [8].

[1]: xiekeyang/oci-discovery#64 (comment)
[2]: opencontainers#37 (comment)
[3]: opencontainers#35 (comment)
[4]: opencontainers#34 (comment)
[5]: opencontainers#35 (comment)
[6]: opencontainers#37 (comment)
[7]: opencontainers#35 (comment)
[8]: opencontainers#37 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

README: Link to the distribution proposal

distribution: Add in-scope and out-of-scope wording

There's precendent in the scope table for "Not currently being worked"
(the "Creating Reference spec for optional DNS based naming &
distribution" entry [1]), but "Work not yet started" (from the
"Archival Format" entry [1]) is a more complete fragment.

The "...provide a standardized way to use DNS..." line is part of the
"Creating a reference spec for optional DNS based naming and
discovery" entry, so I'm dropping it from the "Specifying
authentication and authorization schemes" entry.

I've dropped one of the "parallel" instances for from the
parallel-naming/discovery sentence.  No need to say that twice in once
sentence.

[1]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

…py-edits

distribution: Copy-edits for the scope table

Signed-off-by: Mike Brown <brownwm@us.ibm.com>