Script updating archive at 2023-09-12T00:31:45Z. [ci skip]

ietf-wg-scitt · Sep 12, 2023 · 55bdaf8 · 55bdaf8
1 parent 28de001
commit 55bdaf8
Showing 1 changed file with 15 additions and 8 deletions.
diff --git a/archive.json b/archive.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2023-09-07T00:32:32.762751+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2023-09-12T00:31:41.951510+00:00",
   "repo": "ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -885,7 +885,7 @@
       "id": "I_kwDOIvmHss5gL1VT",
       "title": "Clarification: \"DID Key Manifest\" to another term",
       "url": "https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/issues/25",
-      "state": "OPEN",
+      "state": "CLOSED",
       "author": "SteveLasker",
       "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR",
       "assignees": [
@@ -896,8 +896,8 @@
       ],
       "body": "              I suggest maybe not using the words \"DID Key Manifest\"... \r\n\r\nMaybe \"Public Key Identifier\" or \"VerificationMethod\".\r\n\r\n_Originally posted by @OR13 in https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/pull/16#discussion_r1126717438_\r\n            ",
       "createdAt": "2023-03-07T15:42:18Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2023-09-05T23:49:46Z",
-      "closedAt": null,
+      "updatedAt": "2023-09-10T19:01:59Z",
+      "closedAt": "2023-09-10T19:01:59Z",
       "comments": [
         {
           "author": "SteveLasker",
@@ -1492,7 +1492,7 @@
       "labels": [],
       "body": "Re: #40:\r\n\r\nThe [SCITT charter](https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/scitt/about/) says:\r\n> reuse existing work from IETF WGs such as COSE and RATS, as appropriate,\r\n\r\nThe words \"as appropriate\" suggest to me that we should have some discussion of the pros and cons of mandating COSE, and address alternatives.\r\n\r\nIn particular, there is already deployment experience with the closely-related effort [Sigstore](https://www.sigstore.dev/) which uses [DSSE: Dead Simple Signing Envelope](https://github.com/secure-systems-lab/dsse). Some googling will surface a comparison of [Signature Formats. Envelopes and Wrappers and Formats, Oh My! by Dan Lorenc](https://dlorenc.medium.com/signature-formats-9b7b2a127473) which recommends DSSE over the family of JOSE standards, which includes COSE to some extent, though COSE is not covered in that article.\r\n\r\nI think we'd should try to promote interoperability with Sigstore.\r\n\r\nIs there some background info somewhere on advantages of mandating COSE?",
       "createdAt": "2023-03-10T00:41:23Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2023-09-06T09:14:44Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2023-09-12T00:00:10Z",
       "closedAt": "2023-09-04T15:20:15Z",
       "comments": [
         {
@@ -1543,6 +1543,13 @@
           "body": "I closed this issue because I do not see a need to add text comparing a proprietary technology with standardized technology. If there is a decision in SCITT then it is about whehter to use JSON or CBOR (with the corresponding security wrappers). \r\n\r\nAs far as I know there is no ongoing work in the IETF to standardize DSSE. ",
           "createdAt": "2023-09-06T09:14:44Z",
           "updatedAt": "2023-09-06T09:14:44Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "nealmcb",
+          "authorAssociation": "NONE",
+          "body": "Again, I think it is very misleading to describe DSSE as \"proprietary\". No one has exclusive rights to use it. From everything I see, it is an open spec designed by recognized experts and used by e.g. sigstore and in-toto, which are themselves managed by the Linux Foundation. The documents are [licenced via Apache License 2.0](https://github.com/secure-systems-lab/dsse/blob/master/LICENSE), making the whole thing more open from my standpoint than e.g. ISO standards.\r\n\r\nIt's ok for SCITT and IETF to decide to stick to formats they have better change control over. But I hope others take up the task of an inclusive technical comparison of the relevant signature envelope formats.",
+          "createdAt": "2023-09-12T00:00:10Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2023-09-12T00:00:10Z"
         }
       ]
     },
@@ -1827,7 +1834,7 @@
       "id": "I_kwDOIvmHss5rGFHB",
       "title": "Add issue describing relative DID URLs",
       "url": "https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/issues/81",
-      "state": "OPEN",
+      "state": "CLOSED",
       "author": "OR13",
       "authorAssociation": "COLLABORATOR",
       "assignees": [
@@ -1836,8 +1843,8 @@
       "labels": [],
       "body": "based on https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/pull/78/files#r1256894727\r\n\r\nspecifically the JSON and JSON-LD processing of the fragment part...",
       "createdAt": "2023-07-10T13:15:16Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2023-09-06T00:10:09Z",
-      "closedAt": null,
+      "updatedAt": "2023-09-10T19:01:40Z",
+      "closedAt": "2023-09-10T19:01:40Z",
       "comments": [
         {
           "author": "SteveLasker",