Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
1.6 dev cbom #347
1.6 dev cbom #347
Changes from 31 commits
a1697ef
f1c9fe2
7801028
6f38f48
e91b9f0
8d1c9a4
29373d7
17019b0
fae707b
419d536
5af5623
dd517f6
779121c
d39b039
77ab457
224f756
cbc6ee5
ad47938
800ad2a
32ffcc0
915c7cc
551d7ff
0e1e922
2908720
81858fe
82ddeb0
83daf62
57ab8bf
9a9fab8
3446cce
29fc0a6
d8ae85e
56e936e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
In the case of other, is there a provision to provide a custom value?
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.
Not currently. But perhaps in a future version if there is demand.
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.
@bhess your thoughts here?
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.
In the JSON schema it is currently defined as an enum. I think we considered to externally defining the enums to make them easier extensible, might this be an option for a future version?
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.
Same request as above. A place for providing custom value would be nice.
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.
Not currently. Let me discuss with with FWG this week.
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.
@bhess Your thoughts here?
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.
Same thought as with the executionEnvironment above. I think custom values for implementationPlatform will occur more often as for executionEnvironment.
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.
Can we include
notBefore
andnotAfter
to track both usage and validity? This is consistent with RFC 5280.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.
Good point.. Will bring this up in FWG meeting this week.
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.
@bhess your thoughts here?
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.
@prabhu you refer to
privateKeyUsagePeriod
in RFC 5280, right?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.
Usage then relates to the private key and validity to the certificate. Following RFC 5280, perhaps add
privateKeyUsagePeriodNotBefore
andprivateKeyUsagePeriodNotAfter
to be sure this relates to the private key?