Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jrschumacher
Copy link
Member

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

Proposed Changes

Checklist

  • A clear description of the change has been included in this PR.
  • A clear description of whether this change is a Major, Minor, Patch or cosmetic change as per the Versioning Guidelines has been included in this PR.
  • All schema validation tests have been updated appropriately and are passing.
  • MAJOR/MINOR VERSION CHANGES ONLY: This PR should be made in branches prefixed with draft-<change>
  • MAJOR/MINOR VERSION CHANGES ONLY: A link to a reference implementation (PR or set of PRs) of the change has been included in this PR.
  • MAJOR/MINOR VERSION CHANGES ONLY: A writeup has been included discussing the motivation and impact of this change.
  • MAJOR/MINOR VERSION CHANGES ONLY: The minimum wait time has elapsed.
  • DRAFT MERGE ONLY: Draft Semver has been updated in the VERSION file (optional)
  • DRAFT MERGE ONLY: Tagged this branch with new semver version and an annotation describing the change (ex: git tag -s 4.1.0 -m "Spec version 4.1.0 - did a thing")
  • DRAFT MERGE ONLY: Version numbers have been updated as per the Versioning Guidelines.
  • This change otherwise adheres to the project Contribution Guidelines.

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
@jrschumacher jrschumacher requested a review from a team as a code owner June 4, 2024 10:06
| ------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ |
| Content Length | 2 | 2 |
| Plaintext/Ciphertext | 1 | 64,000 |
| (Optional) Policy Binding | 8 | 132 |
Copy link
Member

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 |
Copy link
Member

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 |
Copy link
Member

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.

@jrschumacher
Copy link
Member Author

@sujankota could you work with @biscoe916 on getting the spec doc aligned with the image.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants