Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 18, 2023. It is now read-only.

Overview content-prior to operator and author content #5

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

SteveLasker
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker stevenlasker@hotmail.com

Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
@SteveLasker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Consumes #3 & #4 with overview content that links to the previous commits.

@SteveLasker SteveLasker force-pushed the readme-overview branch 2 times, most recently from aa82c90 to ff1d345 Compare August 24, 2019 01:34
@SteveLasker SteveLasker force-pushed the readme-overview branch 2 times, most recently from b7bc1a5 to 7ecb4d0 Compare August 26, 2019 00:23
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@mikebrow mikebrow left a 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README.md Outdated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)
Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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README.md Outdated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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

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.
Copy link
Member

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.
Copy link
Member

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.
Copy link
Member

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].
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

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>
jdolitsky added a commit to bloodorangeio/artifacts that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2021
@mikebrow
Copy link
Member

mikebrow commented Sep 23, 2021

@SteveLasker ping :-)

@SteveLasker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @mikebrow
this is some cleanup when I was intermixing layered PRs to boot up the artifacts repo.
If this is truly overview content (i need to look closer) then it’s outdated.
There’s some content for localized identifiers for each artifact we want to preserve and another doc for what registries need to do to enable artifacts. It was about loosening the restrictions on the config.mediaTyoe and layer.mediaType.

@SteveLasker
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is outdated with various other PRs.

@SteveLasker SteveLasker closed this Jul 5, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants