Closed SteveLasker closed 2 years ago
I wonder if it's necessary to define/require a org.cncf.oras.artifact.created
annotation given org.opencontainers.image.created
is defined. The ArtifactManifest spec uses the image-spec annotation rules to define valid annotation values. They carry essentially the same meaning, but the duplication suggests none of org.opencontainers.image.* annotations should be applied to an Artifact.
The artifact's creation time MUST be the value of the org.cncf.oras.artifact.created annotation, as specified in the artifact-manifest spec.
Hi @corburn,
Appreciate the input. This is part of the decoupling of the runtime container-specific image spec, from the more generic OCI Artifacts work. See here for some background: Proposal: Decoupling Registries from Specific Artifact Specs #91
Ultimately, I'd like to see OCI Artifacts and ORAS Artifacts merged into the distribution spec and the runtime container image becomes a specific type of artifact. Just as Helm, CNAB, Singularity, various signatures are other types of artifacts are today.
This goes to that generalized pattern, enabling the referrers API to filter by artifactType
and sort by created.
This annotation is the beginning of a set of generalized annotations.
We've been using the logical namespace of
org.cncf.oras.*
but the image spec calls out a suggestion to use internet reverse namespace:We could use
land.oras
to reflect https://oras.land/ Or, we could ask CNCF to create a oras.cncf.io domain.The thing I like about the cncf.io sub-domain is it would align with a DiD based identity provider.