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

PEP 458: Add clarification #1284

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Jan 29, 2020
Merged

Conversation

mnm678
Copy link
Contributor

@mnm678 mnm678 commented Jan 27, 2020

Made minor edits including:

  • letting the PSF appoint offline key holders
  • moving content from abstract to motivation to make the abstract more succinct
  • updating the threat model
  • resolving some minor inconsistencies

* letting the PSF appoint offline key holders
* moving content from abstract to motivation to make the abstract more succinct
* updating the threat model
* resolving some minor inconsistencies
@mnm678
Copy link
Contributor Author

mnm678 commented Jan 27, 2020

cc @ncoghlan @trishankatdatadog

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM to me except for my one question!

@brainwane
Copy link
Contributor

heads-up @ewdurbin and @di and @woodruffw in case you want to take a look

@brainwane
Copy link
Contributor

@mnm678 Per @ncoghlan's note in the Discourse thread about other implementations of TUF, would this PR also be an ok, low-effort place to add a link to https://www.linuxfoundation.org/cloud-containers-virtualization/2017/10/cncf-host-two-security-projects-notary-tuf-specification/ somewhere? :-)

pep-0458.txt Outdated
@@ -51,7 +51,10 @@ would need to steal multiple signing keys, which are stored independently,
in order to compromise the role responsible for specifying a repository's available
files. Or, alternatively, a role
responsible for indicating the latest snapshot of the repository may also have to be
compromised.
compromised. More background about TUF and information about other TUF
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is really background information, no? Perhaps better to just add it as another link for TUF when it is first defined?

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

This looks good, but the ReST markup issue needs to be resolved before it can be merged.

@ncoghlan ncoghlan merged commit 202ab85 into python:master Jan 29, 2020
@di di mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2022
52 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants