"Anton Wuerfel" <anton.wuer...@fau.de> writes:
> as part of an university project we plan to implement time stamp
> signatures according to RFC 3161. This enables users to create and verify
> cryptographic time stamp signatures to prove that a commit existed at a
> certain point in time.
>
> As a long-term goal, we would like to get this new feature accepted into
> upstream, so we are very interested in your opinions and suggestions for
> our approach described in the following.
>
> We plan to add new command line options to git tag and call openssl
> similar to how "git tag -s" is calling gpg. The time stamp query generated
> by openssl will be sent to the time stamping authority via libcurl.
> Verification of timestamps will be possible via git verify-tag.
>
> In order to store time stamp signatures, the file format for git tags
> needs to be extended. Similar to how gpg signatures are stored, we would
> store the signed time stamp responses in base64 surrounded by BEGIN and
> END tags:
> -----BEGIN RFC3161-----
> Issuer: [issuer-name]
> [time stamp response in base64]
> -----END RFC3161-----
>
> We plan to offer git config options to configure, which timestamping
> authority to use and where trusted certificates are stored.
A few random thoughts that come to mind, none of which is
rhetorical [*1*]:
- What should happen when the timestamping service is unreachable?
The user cannot get her work done at all? A tag is created
without timestamp and with a warning? Something else?
- Is "signed tag" the only thing that will benefit from such a
certified timestamping mechanism? Would it be worthwhile to
offer a similar support for "signed commit"?
- How would the certified timestamp interact with GPG signing of
the tag? Can they both be applied to the same tag, and if so
what is signed by which mechanism and in what order or are they
done independently and in parallel? E.g. would the timestamp be
done on the contents without GPG signature, and the GPG signature
be done on the contents without timestamp, and both signature
blocks concatenated at the end of the original contents?
- Would it make sense to store the certified timestamp in the
object header part, like the way GPG signature for signed commit
objects are stored [*2*], instead of following the old-style
"signed tag" that concatenates a separate signature at the end?
[Footnote]
*1* ... meaning that when I ask "Is X true?", I do not mean "I think
X is true" or "I do not think X can possibly be true".
*2* We designed newer places that use GPG signatures (i.e. signed
commit and merge tag) to store the signature in the header part
for a reason: the base64 gobbledygook is not for human
consumption and showing it together with the original contents
would not help.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
