Re: Notary/TuF & GPG (& Harbor)

alexis richardson


What are your thoughts on Notary?


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Scott McCarty via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the comments on GnuPG - the ubiquitous use of GPG is what drove Red Hat to work on what we call "simple signing" [1][2]. We would love to partner on more of this work.



Best Regards

Scott M

On 06/20/2017 05:23 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc wrote:
Thanks Richard.  +1 on .debs.  My 2c is that signing functionality used to be quite inhumane, and any project seeking to do better could certainly focus on being "pleasant".  Although the Notary didn't highlight this specifically, it sounded like they haven't ignored it either.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@... <mailto:richih@...>> wrote:

    On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc
    <cncf-toc@... <mailto:cncf-toc@...>> wrote:

    > Thanks Patrick & Docker people for Notary pres. I personally
    found it very
    > useful & educational, having avoided package signing myself as
    much as
    > possible ;-)
    > I would love to understand how a GPG person would make the case
    for sticking
    > with just that.

    Speaking as a Debian Developer, most of my work in that regard is
    underpinned by GnuPG. A lot of the functionality mentioned could be
    built with GnuPG and installed base and integration in many, many
    workflows and systems is a huge advantage in potential adaption. That
    being said, features like built-in quorum, expiring signatures, and
    other mechanisms can't easily be replicated with GnuPG, or its
    brethren, in their current form.

    I can see merit in both extending the PGP world to cover these aspects
    and in creating a new infrastructure.

    I am willing to bet that feature velocity will be higher outside of
    the PGP ecosystem as the installed base could be a disadvantage in
    this context. Also, some mechanisms are not designed for anything
    exceeding a certain scale.

    While this is not an endorsement of any particular project or path
    forward, I can say that the general functionality is highly needed.
    Years ago, I implemented a data store for a financial customer with
    third-party commercial hashsum timestamping services; that was not
    very pleasant at all. The functionality in and as of itself would be
    useful in a _lot_ of regards.


cncf-toc mailing list


Scott McCarty, RHCA

Technical Product Marketing: Containers

Email: smccarty@...

Phone: 312-660-3535

Cell: 330-807-1043


When should you split your application into multiple containers?

cncf-toc mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.