search

dhuseby / did-git-spec

Proposed specification for the did:git: method
Apache License 2.0
15 stars 5 forks source link

I think `governance.md` should be `governance.json` #8

Open dhuseby opened 5 years ago

dhuseby commented 5 years ago

I've been thinking about the authentication process for walking through a git history and verifying that the governance rules, DID doc provenance, and commit signatures all check out. I keep wondering how we can specify the governance rules so that an authentication tool can be created. I think the first step is to change the governance doc from a free-form md file to a YAML or JSON file that has both deterministic fields that encode the governance rules as well as free-form text for human consumption.

I'd like to have an array of rules in the governance document that are input parameters to some verification system. If we think of the repo history as a blockchain of transactions, then the governance.json file is the set of "smart contracts" that validate each transaction. Git already has commit hooks so the governance rules could simply be a script that gets run as the commit-msg hook to validate the fully formed commit before it gets finalized. Ideally the script would also be runable by an authentication checking tool that walks history from oldest to newest feeding the raw commit to the script.

The first step in all of this would be to change the governance document to something that scripts/code can parse easily and pull named values from. Since DID documents are JSON-LD, I think the governance document should be as well--if for no other reason than to minimize dependencies in tools.

dhuseby commented 5 years ago

It is important to point out that the commit validation script/rules must be stored in the repo itself so that the provenance of the rules is also tracked and defended with signatures. Given the rules we have for the "genesis" commit, even that one would pass the checks.

twshelton commented 5 years ago

I've been thinking along the same lines when considering the DID Update method. Would it be possible to examine each commit to see if changes were made to the .did/ directory and if so apply some rules? For example, if ./did/abcdefg12345.did was renamed to ./did/hijklmno678910.did, could the script validate the signature for the commit against the keys in the original file? If so, we could establish some rules around git file operations and specify what is required to have each commit acceptable under the terms of the governance.md file.

dhuseby commented 5 years ago

@twshelton I am almost certain that git commit hooks can do this. But since this operation is supposed to go through git did update <committer DID string> we own the context completely. The git did porcelain can do the checks before/while it executes the actual git actions on the repo.

dhuseby commented 5 years ago

@twshelton as I was catching up on the discussion this morning I started to rethink the on-disk organization of the files. Instead of trying to hide everything in a .did/ hidden folder we should have them be regular files because I think what we're doing here is upgrading open source boilerplate to be DID/governance aware. I explained it at the bottom of this post.

twshelton commented 5 years ago

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and make the basic corrections to mv .did/ to did/ and change the update method from delete/add to git mv. I'll also change governance.md to governance.json. I'll submit a pull request later with those changes.