-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
If lossy / lossless comparison becomes a thing then there should be an informative section that describes the concepts and provides an example or two.
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.
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. |
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 we not qualify what equivalent means?
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 think that we can revert the equivalence text for ECTs since there's already a translation to them.
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've gone back to the original text about equivalence to clarify the "typically" wording.
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.
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. |
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.
Move this to a top level Equivalence definition, and check, whether it is applicable in all sections!
Issues #375, #388.