Open adityasaky opened 1 month ago
I suppose if it's causing confusion we should definitely say something.
In our usage the subject.uri
field has no relation whatsoever to the resourceUri
. Users are free to have the subject.uri set to whatever they like.
I'd prefer we not replace resourceUri with subject.uri. I seem to remember this being discussed to quite some extent before, but I cannot find the discussion. If we want we can document that rationale.
The artifact a VSA applies to is identified using the
resourceUri
in the attestation predicate (per https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.0/verification_summary#fields). Should the VSA spec add guidance about howresourceUri
is related to entries in the attestation'ssubject
field? A subject can have its ownuri
as well, should this match?Alternatively, should we deprecate
resourceUri
in favor ofsubject
? This would be consistent with how we treat provenance for artifacts AIUI. This would also enable generating a single VSA when verifying multiple artifacts against the same policy.