-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Conversation
* 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
LGTM to me except for my one question! |
heads-up @ewdurbin and @di and @woodruffw in case you want to take a look |
@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Outdated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 |
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.
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?
This looks good, but the ReST markup issue needs to be resolved before it can be merged. |
Made minor edits including: