-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
Overview content-prior to operator and author content #5
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
3d572af
to
36cf15a
Compare
aa82c90
to
ff1d345
Compare
b7bc1a5
to
7ecb4d0
Compare
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
7ecb4d0
to
d902765
Compare
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should avoid checking in logos of other products?
see artifact-layer.png
README.md
Outdated
* [Overview of Registry Content Delivery](#overview-of-registry-content-delivery) | ||
* [Defining OCI Artifact Types](#defining-oci-artifact-types) | ||
* [Definitions & Terms](definitions-terms.md) | ||
* [OCI Artifact Implementations](implementors.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
see review comments on the implementor's PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the logos, what do you suggest here? Can I reference logos, via a URL to their official logo? Do I have to resort to text :(
Can I ask the maintainers of Helm and Singularity to make a PR, this way it's their contribution?
Eventually, for the artifactTypes folder, I was planning on asking artifact authors to submit their logo for general consumption, so they are giving rights to others to use when displaying the type within their registry products & services.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah just reference their logo ..
README.md
Outdated
|
||
## Table of Contents | ||
## OCI Artifact Table of Contents |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/OCI Artifact//
@@ -19,6 +26,48 @@ By providing an OCI artifact definition, the community can continue to innovate, | |||
* [Project governance](GOVERNANCE.md) | |||
* [Release procedures](RELEASES.md) | |||
|
|||
## Overview of Registry Content Delivery |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we should define what a registry is in the Artifacts readme. Maybe in a "treatise" document that you could link to from here.
See https://opencontainers.github.io/org/ and the source for it over here: https://github.com/opencontainers/org/tree/master/docs/docs
| [Manifest Schemas](#manifest-schemas) |<img src=./media/manifest-layer.png height=40> | | ||
| [Artifacts](#artifacts) |<img src=./media/artifact-layer.png height=100> | | ||
|
||
### Registry |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same comment
|
||
### Manifest Schemas | ||
|
||
For a registry to store collections of content, it must have well known schemas to uniquely describe each content addressable object. The [OCI Manifest][image-manifest] and [OCI Index][image-index] are two well known schemas that implementations of the [OCI Distribution Spec][distribution-spec] MUST support. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, but let's not use MUST language here. It's fine in the distribution spec but we should avoid using directive language that applies to a different spec.
s/MUST/must/
|
||
[Registries][def-registry], vulnerability scanners and artifact tooling must understand the types of artifacts they support. Registry scanning tools may only support a subset of artifact types, or they may need to apply different scanning methods based on the artifact type. | ||
|
||
If a security scanning solution were to scan all types, it would fail when it encounters unsupported types, representing false negatives. By differentiating types, a registry scanning solution can ignore unknown types, representing a known state. As new artifact types become [well known][def-well-known-types], scanners can expand the types they offer, providing a more complete known state. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same
|
||
If a security scanning solution were to scan all types, it would fail when it encounters unsupported types, representing false negatives. By differentiating types, a registry scanning solution can ignore unknown types, representing a known state. As new artifact types become [well known][def-well-known-types], scanners can expand the types they offer, providing a more complete known state. | ||
|
||
Artifact tooling must also know the types they support. The docker and containerD client know how to instance container images. However, they are not intended to instance Helm Charts or Singularity images. By defining the artifact type, registries can present the type to their users, and tools pulling artifacts from a registry can determine if they can support the specific type before encountering a runtime error. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same
|
||
Artifact tooling must also know the types they support. The docker and containerD client know how to instance container images. However, they are not intended to instance Helm Charts or Singularity images. By defining the artifact type, registries can present the type to their users, and tools pulling artifacts from a registry can determine if they can support the specific type before encountering a runtime error. | ||
|
||
Artifacts are defined by setting the `manifest.config.mediaType` to a globally unique value. The `config.mediaType` of `application/vnd.oci.image.config.v1+json` is reserved for artifacts intended to be instanced by docker and [containerD][containerd]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes but to much detail for the readme...we should cover this in the spec vs readme..
s/containerD/containerd/
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ | |||
# Definitions and Terms |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wrong PR
implementors.md
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | |||
# OCI Artifacts Implementations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
... wrong pr
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
201c413
to
c2e706c
Compare
push real contents test
@SteveLasker ping :-) |
Thanks @mikebrow |
This PR is outdated with various other PRs. |
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker stevenlasker@hotmail.com