Skip to content

Commit e0dd9a8

Browse files
committed
spec: Clarify Referrers Tag Schema vs. alternative algorithms
From the referenced OCI spec: digest ::= algorithm ":" encoded algorithm ::= algorithm-component (algorithm-separator algorithm-component)* algorithm-component ::= [a-z0-9]+ algorithm-separator ::= [+._-] encoded ::= [a-zA-Z0-9=_-]+ But from the distribution-spec: Throughout this document, `<reference>` as a tag MUST be at most 128 characters in length and MUST match the following regular expression: `[a-zA-Z0-9_][a-zA-Z0-9._-]{0,127}` Happily, the fist character of algorithm must match algorithm-component, and its [a-z0-9] a subset of the tag regexp's opening [a-zA-Z0-9_]. And the colon separating algorithm from encoded was already addressed in the outgoing text. But the digest definition also allows + in the algorithm-separator and = in the encoded portion, which the tag regexp does not allow, so with the incoming wording I'm requiring that to be replaced by a - as well, so clients make consistent choices when deciding how to handle that character while forming distribution-spec referrer tags. And I'm requiring clients to truncate the tag to 128 characters, again so clients make consistent choices when trying to compress from the strings the digest specification allows to the strings tags allow. There is no requirement in the distribution spec as far as I can tell that registries support tags up to 128 characters, but given that the spec explicitly requires clients to not exceed that length, it seems likely that registries will allow tags of that length, and not require further truncation. And clients are obviously free to create whatever tags they like that the registry will accept. The MUST I'm adding does not forbid that. It only clarifies the single distribution-spec Referrers Tag associated with a given digest, because if there could be multiple Referrers Tag for each digest, all distribution-spec referrer-retrieving clients would have to iterate over that whole set of possibilities, in case some distribution-spec referrer-pushing client happened to use one of that digest's other Referrers Tag formats. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
1 parent 7872490 commit e0dd9a8

File tree

1 file changed

+2
-6
lines changed

1 file changed

+2
-6
lines changed

spec.md

Lines changed: 2 additions & 6 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -721,14 +721,10 @@ A client querying the [referrers API](#listing-referrers) and receiving a `404 N
721721

722722
##### Referrers Tag Schema
723723

724-
```text
725-
<alg>-<ref>
726-
```
727-
728-
- `<alg>`: the digest algorithm (e.g. `sha256` or `sha512`)
729-
- `<ref>`: the digest from the `subject` field (limit of 64 characters)
724+
The Referrers Tag associated with a [Content Digest](https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.1/descriptor.md#digests) <sup>[apdx-3](#appendix)</sup> MUST match the digest truncated to 128 characters with any characters not allowed by [`<reference>` tags](#pulling-manifests) replaced with `-`.
730725

731726
For example, a manifest with the `subject` field digest set to `sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa` in the `registry.example.org/project` repository would have a descriptor in the referrers list at `registry.example.org/project:sha256-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa`.
727+
For example, a manifest with the `subject` field digest set to `sha512:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa` in the `registry.example.org/project` repository would have a descriptor in the referrers list at `registry.example.org/project:sha512-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa`.
732728

733729
This tag should return an image index matching the expected response of the [referrers API](#listing-referrers).
734730
Maintaining the content of this tag is the responsibility of clients pushing and deleting image manifests that contain a `subject` field.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)