Closed OR13 closed 1 month ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 92.20%. Comparing base (
2b6f94f
) to head (0906ae5
). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.:exclamation: Current head 0906ae5 differs from pull request most recent head 1980457
Please upload reports for the commit 1980457 to get more accurate results.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@qmuntal, @shizhMSFT, @thomas-fossati, @henkbirkholz can you please take a look, and provide some feedback to @OR13
go-cose call feedback: consensus was to do it in this package.
related issue https://github.com/veraison/go-cose/issues/184
blocked, awaiting: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/ is progressing is progressing. Expectation a few more weeks.
I added support for the typ
header parameter:
18([
h'a30138230fa2016e6973737565722e6578616d706c65026f7375626a6563742e6578616d706c65106f6170706c69636174696f6e2f637774',
{4: h'31'},
h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64', h'00b8f0fbee7d5ca003678a173a1f1cb5f6233e85f2dd421d4d56d13541a67e01fd0c7addabc2c3b07d5b08a027382629aac41dd3f62f69d6c9209e2ca99255bda78600f3ca500d482c9b3a220dfd14395c42d02e0fa423e9192deb83c27b41257bcb3e9162db9e3de0895a81fb51d2ae41e9f07d91146832cbe91fa85b48456aef8ebc82'
])
Decoded protected header:
{1: -36, 15: {1: "issuer.example", 2: "subject.example"}, 16: "application/cwt"}
I suppose there is an API consideration here, perhaps the validation checks should only happen when serialization occurs, instead of causing an error to be thrown when for example invalid claims or invalid cose type is set.
Sooooooo, close.
@thomas-fossati regarding https://github.com/veraison/go-cose/pull/183#discussion_r1649136571
Its a fair point.
My lazy answer is, people can add pull requests for the IANA registry entries they wish the library supported, and they can use the registries without adding "developer experience for them", even if we don't support them here.
We could decide to not add any registry entries from the CWT registry, and only support the registered headers.
The combination of a cross fork PR, and the DCO rebase + github suggestion merges... has made this more trouble than its worth.
@thomas-fossati If you think we should drop the CWT side of this, I will probably just do a fresh PR that only defines the header parameters, and provide some examples that show how to use them, without defining any CWT registry specific stuff.
The combination of a cross fork PR, and the DCO rebase + github suggestion merges... has made this more trouble than its worth.
@thomas-fossati If you think we should drop the CWT side of this, I will probably just do a fresh PR that only defines the header parameters, and provide some examples that show how to use them, without defining any CWT registry specific stuff.
I believe this PR is good and worth adding into the mainline as-is.
Let's raise a couple of tracking issues (one for the registration, one for the potential refactoring) and let's get it merged.
Thanks again for the great contribution.
@OR13, did you want to re-submit this as a new/clean PR, or can we merge as-is?
With #187 and #188 queued up, we're ready for a new release.
Per discussion with @OR13, it was easier to close and redo this PR than fix the DCO issues.
Closing as this with replaced PR #189
closes #173
closes #184
This PR should remain open until numbers are assigned to: