-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
fix: nanotdf policy table #35
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Policy tables were referencing remote policy despite the lack of context or incorrect statements. Implementation of nanoTDF utilized the nanoTDF diagram which denotes the difference in payload size. - fix markdown lint issues - fix typos - fix svg background color for dark github themes - add legend for acronyms
| ------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ | | ||
| Content Length | 2 | 2 | | ||
| Plaintext/Ciphertext | 1 | 64,000 | | ||
| (Optional) Policy Binding | 8 | 132 | |
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.
Shouldn't this be policy key access as it was before? I think this is reference to enum 0x03, "Embedded Policy (Encrypted W/[Policy Key Access])
This basically allows one to encrypt their policy and have a key access scheme that differs from that of the primary object key.
| Section | Minimum Length (B) | Maximum Length (B) | | ||
| ------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ | | ||
| Type Enum | 1 | 1 | | ||
| Policy Length | 2 | 2 | |
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.
Do we need policy length here, or is this covered by the "Content length" field which is in an "Embedded Policy".
| ------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ | | ||
| Type Enum | 1 | 1 | | ||
| Policy Length | 2 | 2 | | ||
| Body | 1 | 64,000 | |
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 recollection is body should be 3 - 257 bytes as in the original spec. I think the diagrams are wrong. I'm definitely open to loosening the restriction here since we no longer are bound by the same requirements as we were when the spec was originally written.
@sujankota could you work with @biscoe916 on getting the spec doc aligned with the image. |
Policy tables were referencing remote policy despite the lack of context or incorrect statements. Implementation of nanoTDF utilized the nanoTDF diagram which denotes the difference in payload size.
Proposed Changes
Checklist
draft-<change>
git tag -s 4.1.0 -m "Spec version 4.1.0 - did a thing"
)