Trust domain intro 00002 by MikeCamel · Pull Request #3 · enarx-archive/rfcs

MikeCamel · 2020-02-12T13:51:27Z

Initial drafts for rfc#00002 and rfc#00003 (related topics).

lkatalin

I found a few typos and had a few questions. Otherwise this looks good and informative!

axelsimon

Lots of suggested changes, hope they help.

Very interesting stuff, one thing i think is missing is a bit of a higher-level abstraction of what trust domains are, maybe as a general introduction. Something along the lines of trust domains: what falls within the realm of things you need to consider in term of trust relationships, and what doesn't.

This should also make it easier to help people grok the power of trust domains as a tool for considering not only what is and out of the domain but also what moves in and out of the domains.

axelsimon · 2020-02-27T11:37:41Z

Quick note, as per the RFC process (which is now live), this RFC should use the number of its PR, so it should be RFC 00003 :)

MikeCamel

All changes reviewed.

npmccallum

I'm reading through the RFCs now. However, there are three major process issues that need to be resolved:

You can't file more than one RFC in a single PR.
The RFC MUST have the number of the PR that adds it.
The file name format is incorrect.

Please follow the instructions detailed here:

https://github.com/enarx/rfcs/blob/master/contributing.md#how-to-propose-an-rfc

npmccallum · 2020-03-17T15:46:24Z

Having now read them, I think the best way forward is to combine them. The first RFC feels too light and should just be a preface to the second one. After merging them, please use RFC#00003.

MikeCamel · 2020-03-17T15:54:43Z

I'm reading through the RFCs now. However, there are three major process issues that need to be resolved:
1. You can't file more than one RFC in a single PR.

This was my first PR. Won't do it again.

2. The RFC MUST have the number of the PR that adds it.

Includes or adds? I think we've established (in this thread: #19) that this doesn't work if we want to have consecutive RFCs, because of how the numbering of PRs is assigned.

3. The file name format is incorrect.

See below.

Please follow the instructions detailed here:

https://github.com/enarx/rfcs/blob/master/contributing.md#how-to-propose-an-rfc

This was not complete at time of submission, which is why it was wrong. Will change the file name format, however.

MikeCamel · 2020-03-17T15:56:36Z

Having now read them, I think the best way forward is to combine them. The first RFC feels too light and should just be a preface to the second one. After merging them, please use RFC#00003.

Disagree. #2 stands on its own, and I expect to reference it from other RFCs. #3 is one implementation (the default), but not the only one.

lkatalin · 2020-03-23T19:37:06Z

This version is a lot more clear than previously. 🎉 There are still issues with consistent capitalization in the lists in Enarx use case states; not sure how much we care.

typo Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

lkatalin

This looks good aside from a couple of markdown rendering issues as noted below.
I assume the commits will be squashed at some point as well.

lkatalin · 2020-07-16T16:28:50Z

+- entities running processes on the host (includes other workloads
+and compromised processes)
+- man-in-the-middle entities
+Clearly, the first two are the key actors - the others are included for


This shows up as part of the "man-in-the-middle" bullet point in markdown.

lkatalin · 2020-07-16T16:29:46Z

+- Provisioned Keep
+- tenant workload
+- Other workloads
+Not all of these exist at all points in the process.


This line also needs a space in order to render properly in markdown.

Suggested change

Not all of these exist at all points in the process.

Not all of these exist at all points in the process.

lkatalin · 2020-07-16T16:33:26Z

+
+## Future Possibilities
+
+- Threat models should be documented and published as RFCs [Issue 15](https://github.com/enarx/rfcx/issues/15)


Suggested change

- Threat models should be documented and published as RFCs [Issue 15](https://github.com/enarx/rfcx/issues/15)

- Threat models should be documented and published as RFCs [Issue #15 ](https://github.com/enarx/rfcx/issues/15)

For consistency with the below bullet point.

mbestavros

While I have no qualms with the content of these RFCs (indeed, it's really well done), it needs some organizational love, including:

a rebase
organizing the READMEs according to the criteria outlined in #22 (admittedly, yet to be merged)

Additionally, this RFC currently contains two READMEs. If the tests allow it, this might be fine -- but it might also be prudent to either split them into separate PRs, or combine them.

axelsimon · 2020-12-08T13:30:27Z

I suggest closing this PR as our process has been refined since we started off and his PR doesn't fit.
PR #47 addresses the Trust Domain Introduction part of this PR.
A new PR will be opened soon for the Trust domains and Enarx part of this PR.

mbestavros · 2020-12-11T16:18:30Z

Closing per @axelsimon

MikeCamel added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Feb 12, 2020

MikeCamel requested review from axelsimon and npmccallum February 12, 2020 13:51

lkatalin suggested changes Feb 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

MikeCamel force-pushed the Trust-domain-intro-00002 branch from 4cdd407 to 568f680 Compare February 13, 2020 21:50

axelsimon reviewed Feb 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

lkatalin reviewed Mar 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread rfc#00002 Outdated

MikeCamel commented Mar 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

npmccallum suggested changes Mar 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

MikeCamel and others added 16 commits March 24, 2020 14:43

initial work on definitions

4060338

rfc#00002 first draft, rfc#00003 initial work

a866d5b

rfc#00003 first draft

8c3a077

started addressing lkatalin's comments

e0d3720

Title fixes

f8442b6

slight changes to improve points around trust relationships

c31a4e5

more changes for @lkatalin

1a92a2b

Update rfc#00003

61798ab

typo Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

61dfe7f

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

2a8fc3c

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

10066ba

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

55cecfa

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

a0757a5

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

a8360a9

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

bc4c200

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

Update rfc#00003

7cdd85e

capitalisation Co-Authored-By: Lily Sturmann <lkatalin@users.noreply.github.com>

axelsimon mentioned this pull request May 28, 2020

Default enarx trust process #26

Closed

Dealt with multiple excellent suggestions from project team members.

1def160

MikeCamel requested review from axelsimon, connorkuehl and lkatalin May 29, 2020 13:50

enarxbot assigned axelsimon, connorkuehl, lkatalin, npmccallum and MikeCamel and unassigned npmccallum, axelsimon, connorkuehl and lkatalin Jul 16, 2020

lkatalin suggested changes Jul 16, 2020

View reviewed changes

axelsimon mentioned this pull request Jul 23, 2020

RFC00003 First version of a vulnerability disclosure policy #19

Merged

enarxbot assigned axelsimon, connorkuehl and npmccallum Jul 27, 2020

mbestavros suggested changes Jul 27, 2020

View reviewed changes

enarxbot unassigned npmccallum, axelsimon and connorkuehl Jul 29, 2020

mbestavros removed request for connorkuehl and npmccallum July 30, 2020 14:40

axelsimon self-assigned this Oct 21, 2020

enarxbot unassigned axelsimon Nov 4, 2020

mbestavros closed this Dec 11, 2020

	Not all of these exist at all points in the process.

	Not all of these exist at all points in the process.


		## Future Possibilities

		- Threat models should be documented and published as RFCs [Issue 15](https://github.com/enarx/rfcx/issues/15)

Uh oh!

Conversation

MikeCamel commented Feb 12, 2020

Uh oh!

lkatalin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

axelsimon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

axelsimon commented Feb 27, 2020

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MikeCamel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

npmccallum left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

npmccallum commented Mar 17, 2020

Uh oh!

MikeCamel commented Mar 17, 2020

Uh oh!

MikeCamel commented Mar 17, 2020

Uh oh!

lkatalin commented Mar 23, 2020

Uh oh!

lkatalin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lkatalin Jul 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lkatalin Jul 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lkatalin Jul 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbestavros left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

axelsimon commented Dec 8, 2020

Uh oh!

mbestavros commented Dec 11, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

npmccallum left a comment •

edited

Loading