Skip to content

Encoding equality to equivalence, and key equivalence #393

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

deeglaze
Copy link
Collaborator

Issues #375, #388.

Copy link
Collaborator

@steven-bellock steven-bellock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If lossy / lossless comparison becomes a thing then there should be an informative section that describes the concepts and provides an example or two.

Copy link
Collaborator

@nedmsmith nedmsmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@@ -2466,11 +2464,11 @@ If any of the fields does not match, then the condition ECT does not match the A
The Verifier SHALL compare each field which is present in the condition ECT `environment-map` against the corresponding field in the ACS entry `environment-map` using binary comparison.
Before performing the binary comparison, the Verifier SHOULD convert both `environment-map` fields into a form which meets CBOR Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements {{-cbor}}.

If all fields which are present in the condition ECT `environment-map` are present in the ACS entry and are binary identical, then the environments match.
If all fields which are present in the condition ECT `environment-map` are present in the ACS entry and are equivalent, then the environments match.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we not qualify what equivalent means?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that we can revert the equivalence text for ECTs since there's already a translation to them.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've gone back to the original text about equivalence to clarify the "typically" wording.

Copy link
Collaborator

@yogeshbdeshpande yogeshbdeshpande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just check a minor point...

@@ -2285,7 +2283,7 @@ See {{sec-authority}}.

If the merged `measurement-values-map` contains duplicate codepoints and the
measurement values are equivalent, then duplicate claims SHOULD be omitted.
Equivalence typically means values MUST be binary identical.
Equivalence means the values MUST be binary identical unless they are from a profile extension that defines its own equivalence relation.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Move this to a top level Equivalence definition, and check, whether it is applicable in all sections!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants