Hayden B
Hayden B
Yea, optional is now the default in proto3. We should be annotating sig as required though based on the comment.
This is awesome, thanks so much for tackling this.
@kommendorkapten, did you get a chance to look into the open comments, or would you like someone to take a look?
In general I'm supportive of this, though Appu's question about keeping track of validity needs to be solved. Two thoughts: Can we also have `repeated X509Certificate untrusted_certs` or `repeated X509Certificate...
We shouldn't duplicate these fields, especially the `body` due to the potential size. We have a comment already - https://github.com/sigstore/protobuf-specs/blob/a57a7caac5f4daf428055a34c872c810a6c0a968/protos/sigstore_rekor.proto#L69-L71 - that specifies this should be the JSON canonicalization of...
I addressed each point below, but I think I understand better now why this is needed. The issue is the lack of a standardized struct that represents the SET. I...
I don't see a difference between inspecting the steps in code and running a bash command. In either case, it requires a deep understanding of the cryptographic structures and the...
> I'm not sure if the discussion belongs here, but I think one of the things that would make this easier is representing the inclusion proof checkpoint as structure data...
Going to close this out, as Rekor v2 supersedes this and reuses the `TransparencyLogEntry`.
> If this where built in a cli, where would such a cli live? Either in this repo, or in the repo that matches the language this was built in...