On 6/2/13 4:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote:
Speaking of TUF: is there some kind of PEP like doc floating already?
Just the proof-of-concept the TUF folks created about using it to
secure /simple. I'm personally sold on the technology itself as
something we should deploy in the long run, but I think it makes sense
to wait until we have the static dependency metadata publication and
various other PyPI related infrastructure issues sorted out before we
try to offer additional protection above and beyond trusting the SSL
CA system and PyPI itself.
That said, one of the reasons PEP 426 calls out the "essential
dependency resolution" fields is that those are the ones I think it
may make sense to embed in the TUF custom metadata fields.
Nick got our proof-of-concept pretty much right, and I just want to make
this correction: we offered security for both /simple and /packages, but
only for a subset of packages. We were working on securing all the
packages under PyPI, but were derailed by some projects with immediate
deadlines.
The good news is that we will be continuing our work full-time this
summer, and expect to make much progress.
We don't have a PEP for it, besides our design proposal[1]. I think a
PEP is a good idea, and we should draft one along the way.
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHMhgrGXNCvBZdmjVJzuoN5uMaUAUDWBmn3jo7vxjjw/edit?usp=sharing
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
