You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: proposals/distribution.md
+5-6Lines changed: 5 additions & 6 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -85,19 +85,18 @@ The following entries should be added to the [scope table][scope]:
85
85
* In/Out/Future: Out of scope
86
86
* Status: N/A
87
87
* Description: Defining protocols for authenticating and authorizing distribution access.
88
-
* Why: As a HTTP-based protocol, clients and servers can negotiate authentication via HTTP's [challenge-response authentication framework][rfc7235-s2.1].
88
+
* Why: As an HTTP-based protocol, clients and servers can negotiate authentication via HTTP's [challenge-response authentication framework][rfc7235-s2.1].
89
89
There is no need for the distribution specification to choose a particular authentication scheme, because clients receiving 401 and 407 responses can use IANA's [HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry][iana-auth] to look up referenced schemes and take appropriate action.
90
-
It is reasonable to provide a standardized way to use DNS based distribution in conjunction with OCI without requiring its use.
91
90
92
91
* “Creating a reference spec for optional DNS based naming and discovery”.
93
92
Discovery and registry protocols are completely separate and do not need to be added together.
94
93
This entry replaces part of the previous “Creating Reference spec for optional DNS based naming & distribution” entry.
95
94
96
95
* What: Creating a reference spec for optional DNS based naming and discovery
97
96
* In/Out/Future: In scope for future specification
98
-
* Status: Not currently being worked
97
+
* Status: Work not yet started
99
98
* Description: Define a protocol for resolving an image name to retrieval information.
100
-
When we address this, we will also allow for alternative, parallel name-to-image discovery protocols in parallel with the OCI-specified protocol.
99
+
When we address this, we will also allow for alternative name-to-image discovery protocols in parallel with the OCI-specified protocol.
101
100
* Why: It is reasonable to provide a standardized way to use DNS based distribution in conjunction with OCI without requiring its use.
102
101
There are many good use cases for DNS based distribution, but not all use cases support this.
103
102
Furthermore, encoding the location of a bundle into the bundle can cause issues with downloads from alternate locations other than the origin specified in the name.
@@ -123,13 +122,13 @@ The following entries should be added to the [scope table][scope]:
123
122
124
123
* “Retrieving images by their content-addressable hash”.
125
124
Docker's registery API already provides endpoints for fetching manifest objects by digest][get-manifest].
126
-
Docker's registery API does not currently provides endpoints for fetching image objects by digest, but this is the project where that will happen.
125
+
Docker's registery API does not currently provide endpoints for fetching image objects by digest, but this is the project where that will happen.
127
126
128
127
* What: Retrieving images by their content-addressable hash
129
128
* In/Out/Future: In scope
130
129
* Status: In progress (see opencontainers/distribution-spec)
131
130
* Description: Specify a protocol for retrieving an image from a distribution engine by the image's content-addressable hash.
132
-
* Why: Using a hash as a name is a way to ensure a unique image name without relying on a particular naming authority/or system.
131
+
* Why: Using a hash as a name is a way to ensure a unique image name without relying on a particular naming authorityor system.
133
132
Using hashing for name is an acceptable addition as it does not encode any centralized namespace.
134
133
135
134
The following entries should remain in the [scope table][scope] but not be addressed by this project:
0 commit comments