Add candidate TAP for succinct hash bin delegations #120

mnm678 · 2020-07-02T20:14:41Z

No description provided.

trishankatdatadog

Nice work, Marina! Just a few questions...

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

joshuagl

Thanks for this nice TAP @mnm678 , reducing metadata overheads on large repositories is very welcome.

Should this require the unnumbered TAP for TUF version management? (aside: I plan to review that over the coming days)

Nit: this tap sometimes says "hash bin" and sometimes "hashed bin", the latter is more common in my experience with the reference implementation. It would be good to be consistent. Note: nowhere in the spec do we use the term hashed bins (or hash bins) – we should probably use this term in the spec so that there is continuity of language.

Nit: Do we have any expectations in the TAPs for line-wrapping? Most of the taps wrap lines around the 80 character point, but this one has some especially long lines (presumably a copy-paste artefact?).

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

mnm678 · 2020-07-06T21:59:34Z

Should this require the unnumbered TAP for TUF version management? (aside: I plan to review that over the coming days)

This TAP is not backwards compatible, so it would be better if the version management TAP was accepted first to prevent any compatibility problems. However, this TAP doesn't depend on the changes in the other TAP, and would work with a different version management strategy as well.

mnm678 · 2020-07-06T22:37:29Z

Would you please briefly describe how these numbers were calculated for the unfamiliar reader? Thanks!

Yes, the current calculations are in a document with a lot of other information, so I will copy those somewhere else and include a link.

mnm678 · 2020-07-07T17:17:13Z

@trishankatdatadog @joshuagl Thanks for the reviews! I believe I addressed all of the comments. Is there anything else before I add a TAP number and merge this as a draft?

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

trishankatdatadog · 2020-07-07T17:31:48Z

@trishankatdatadog @joshuagl Thanks for the reviews! I believe I addressed all of the comments. Is there anything else before I add a TAP number and merge this as a draft?

I think we're good. I added one more comment ("MUST" instead of "should", much more prescriptive).

Co-authored-by: Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy <[email protected]>

joshuagl

I've added a few suggestions but I think this TAP looks good.

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

Co-authored-by: Joshua Lock <[email protected]>

lukpueh

Excellent writeup, @mnm678! I strongly support the proposal. Let me know what you think about my comments, especially the one about the maths. :)

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:35:21Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+
+This TAP supports the following use case:
+
+Suppose a single targets file contains a very large number of


Is it worth to say "targets metadata file" here and everywhere to disambiguate it from a target file (w/o "s")?

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:36:33Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+delegating metadata.
+
+Similarly, bins are usually named using a numbering system with a
+common prefix (i.e. alice.hbd-0, alice.hbd-1, …). The delegating


Is it worth to mention what "hbd" stands for? It took me a few seconds to get it ... (but it's also the end of the week). :)

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:40:39Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+2^BIT_LENGTH-1 that represents the bin number.
+
+The `succinct_hash_delegations` will be prioritized over
+`path_hash_prefixes`. If both of these fields appear in a delegation,


Is there an advantage of allowing both fields at the same time? Wouldn't it be better to mandate that only one is specified?

This allows for some backwards compatibility as a repository is switching from path_hash_prefixes to succinct_hash_delegations, but it might be simpler to mandate that only one or the other can be used.

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:42:33Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+
+The `succinct_hash_delegations` will be prioritized over
+`path_hash_prefixes`. If both of these fields appear in a delegation,
+the `path_hash_prefixes` MUST (as per RFC 2119) be ignored in favor of the


Is this RFC2119 MUST different from all the other musts in the document? And what about the mays and shoulds? :)

I think RFC2119 is assumed throughout the specification, so I'll remove that here

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:50:53Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+Repositories that use access control for file uploading should take
+hashed bin delegations into consideration. Upload access for the name
+DELEGATING_ROLENAME.hbd-* should have the same permissions as
+DELEGATING_ROLENAME.


Same as above, why is this important now, but was not important for path_hash_prefixes?

There currently isn't much discussion about access control in the specification, but I thought this was worth mentioning in this case.

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:52:31Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+resolve these using prioritized delegations. So if a delegation uses
+succinct hashed bins and another role delegates to
+DELEGATING_ROLENAME.hbd-\*, the client will use the delegation with a
+higher priority.


Is this paragraph necessary here? Prioritized delegations are described elsewhere, right? And the new field in this TAP doesn't change anything about it.

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T11:55:41Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+the first BIT_LENGTH bits of the hash and will be determined for each
+bin i by computing i * BIT_LENGTH. Once computed, the
+path_hash_prefixes must be represented as the first BIT_LENGTH bits of
+the hash represented in base16, followed by a “*”. So for a BIT_LENGTH


Very minor nit: There's a mix of “ and " in this document. I think we want to stick to the latter.

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T12:05:47Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+the first BIT_LENGTH bits of the hash and will be determined for each
+bin i by computing i * BIT_LENGTH. Once computed, the
+path_hash_prefixes must be represented as the first BIT_LENGTH bits of
+the hash represented in base16, followed by a “*”. So for a BIT_LENGTH


I think you need to escape asterisks here and elsewhere in the free text, or you mark it up as verbatim text.

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T12:43:12Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+the hash represented in base16, followed by a “*”. So for a BIT_LENGTH
+of 3, the path_hash_prefix of the first bin would be “0*” (binary
+values starting with 000) , the second bin would be “2*” (binary
+values 001), the third “4*”, then “6*”, “8*”, “a*”, “c*”, and “e*”.


I don't fully understand the bin partitioning maths here. Are you sure that this matches what we currently do? Would you mind elaborating how BIT_LENGTH relates to what we currently call prefix_length?

lukpueh · 2020-07-17T15:42:44Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+of 3, the path_hash_prefix of the first bin would be “0*” (binary
+values starting with 000) , the second bin would be “2*” (binary
+values 001), the third “4*”, then “6*”, “8*”, “a*”, “c*”, and “e*”.


Okay, I just re-read the paragraph and I understand it now. :) The math seems to match what's in the reference implementation, but the binary value in the parentheses for bin "2*" should be 010, right?

Also, I was confused by the word starting, do you mean the binary representation of the hash starts with 000, or the range of hash path prefixes for bin 0* starts with 000? Either way, I think it would be helpful to list all path prefixes for every bin in this example, it's only 8 bins and 2 prefixes per bins.

And I have another question, why (and where) do we need to represent the hash_path_prefixes as the first BIT_LENGTH bits of the hash represented in base16, followed by a “*”? Isn't the point about succinct_hash_delegations that we no longer need the path_hash_prefixes?

I updated this, but I think the relationship between the binary prefixes and their base64 representations might be a confusing way to explain this (especially because, as you mention, we no longer need to use path_hash_prefixes). I'll revisit this in a bit to see if I can clarify it better.

I updated this again and removed all the mentions of path_hash_prefixes in this paragraph.

Co-authored-by: lukpueh <[email protected]>

mnm678 · 2020-08-21T21:45:51Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+```
+("succinct_hash_delegations" : {
+    "prefix_bit_length" : BIT_LENGTH
+})


As discussed in the POC implementation at theupdateframework/python-tuf#1106, having a dictionary with a single item is a bit wordy. Would it make more sense to instead add something like:

("generate_succinct_delegations" : BIT_LENGTH)

@lukpueh @JustinCappos @joshuagl

generate_succinct_delegations sounds a bit like a boolean to me. What about "delegation_hash_prefix_len": BIT_LENGTH? We could also keep the dictionary and add an additional optional role_name_prefix to allow the delegating role to override the default DELEGATING_ROLENAME.hbd- prefix for delegated bin roles. What do you think?

I really like the idea of being able to specify role_name_prefix! Rather than have it be a field in the succinct_hash_delegation dictionary, should it be part of the DELEGATIONS object so that it can also be used for path_hash_prefixes and give us consistently named hashed bin delegations, regardless of which mechanism they were created with?

I agree that specifying the role_name_prefix would be helpful to give the delegating metadata more flexibility. With the existing mechanism, it is already possible to use any role name for hashed bins (although the api does not provide this flexibility). Maybe as part of the implementation we can add the ability to define role_name_prefix for both succinct hashed bin delegations (by adding it to the metadata) and for legacy hashed bin delegations (by adding it to the api).

Exactly, a role_name_prefix in the delegations object is not needed for normal/legacy hashed bin delegations, because each delegated hash bin role name is listed explicitly in the delegation object. But it would definitely be great to support a prefix parameter in the API for any type of hashed bin delegation (see theupdateframework/python-tuf#1106 (comment))

What do you think about using the name field to specify the prefix? It is already re-purposed, by assigning the delegating role name in the case of succinct hbd, and if we specify a prefix we don't need that anymore, right? OTOH, it might be better to aim for semantic correctness and not call it name if it is only a name prefix.

For simplicity, I like the idea of re-purposing the name field. This field doesn't have any other use for succinct hashed bin delegations (as the name is generated from the prefix), so it won't interfere with any other functionality.

If there are no objections, I will update this pr and theupdateframework/python-tuf#1106 to use delegation_hash_prefix_len and describe the use of custom role name prefixes.

It has been a while, are we still planning to repurpose the name field as the prefix and drop the bin_name_prefix?

If I remember correctly, we decided against that to make the field names more clear, but I'm still open to using the name field.

… prefixes. This commit replaces the wordy notation: ("succinct_hash_delegations" : { "prefix_bit_length" : BIT_LENGTH }) with the simpler: ("delegation_hash_prefix_len" : BIT_LENGTH) In addition, it allows the user to specify a prefix for succinct hashed bin delegations instead of always using the default DELEGATING_ROLENAME.hbd- prefix. Signed-off-by: marinamoore <[email protected]>

joshuagl · 2020-08-26T14:11:01Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

-name of the delegating entity. It will be structured as
-DELEGATING_ROLENAME.hbd-COUNT where DELEGATING_ROLENAME is the name of
-the role that delegated to the hashed bins and COUNT is a value between 0 and
+PREFIX listed in the `name` field of the delegation. By default, the PREFIX


by default, when the name field is empty? or something else? If the former, does that make the name field optional?

joshuagl · 2020-08-26T14:14:27Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

-       ("succinct_hash_delegations" : {
-    "prefix_bit_length" : BIT_LENGTH
-        })
+       ("delegation_hash_prefix_len" : BIT_LENGTH)


I'm mildly concerned that path_hash_prefixes and delegation_hash_prefix_len are not obviously related and exclusive of each other. We can address this somewhat by improving wording in the spec, but ideally the names would be more indicative of their relation.

Maybe this is something we should file an issue about to address in a major version update once TAP 14 is Final?

The `NAME_PREFIX` field more explicitly indicates the prefix that should be used when generating bin names for succinct hashed bin delegations. In order to include this field, this pr also creates a dictionary to include all fields associated with succinct hashed bin delegations. Signed-off-by: marinamoore <[email protected]>

mnm678 · 2020-10-01T18:16:02Z

@lukpueh @joshuagl Per our discussion today, I updated the TAP to include a name_prefix field to more explicitly describe the generated bins.

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

…ions The name field is overwritten by the generated names, so to remove confusion, this field should not be used with succinct hashed bin delegations, Signed-off-by: marinamoore <[email protected]>

joshuagl

I think the format of the delegations object could be cleaned up, but I'm not sure my proposals here make it any clearer.

If I'm following correctly a delegations object needs either name or succinct_hash_delegations and path_hash_prefixes is optional. If the delegations object includes a succinct_hash_delegations field then any path_hash_prefixes field is ignored.

Is that correct? Can we rewrite the object format for the specification to make this clearer?

joshuagl · 2020-10-05T08:07:42Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+       KEYID : KEY,
+       ... },
+   "roles" : [{
+       ("name": ROLENAME,)


I think this effectively becomes

Suggested change

("name": ROLENAME,)

("name": ROLENAME |

"succinct_hash_delegations" : {

"delegation_hash_prefix_len" : BIT_LENGTH,

"bin_name_prefix" : NAME_PREFIX}),

joshuagl · 2020-10-05T08:09:44Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+       ("path_hash_prefixes" : [ HEX_DIGEST, ... ] |
+       ("succinct_hash_delegations" : {
+         "delegation_hash_prefix_len" : BIT_LENGTH,
+         "bin_name_prefix" : NAME_PREFIX
+       })


Then this would become:

Suggested change

("path_hash_prefixes" : [ HEX_DIGEST, ... ] |

("succinct_hash_delegations" : {

"delegation_hash_prefix_len" : BIT_LENGTH,

"bin_name_prefix" : NAME_PREFIX

})

("path_hash_prefixes" : [ HEX_DIGEST, ... ],)

mnm678 · 2020-10-05T16:41:49Z

If I'm following correctly a delegations object needs either name or succinct_hash_delegations and path_hash_prefixes is optional. If the delegations object includes a succinct_hash_delegations field then any path_hash_prefixes field is ignored.

Is that correct? Can we rewrite the object format for the specification to make this clearer?

Yes, and I agree that we should make this more clear in the object format. However, it'd be nice if we could still relate that succinct_hash_delegations supersedes path_hash_prefixes. I'll think about this some more and see if there's a clear way to relate all of that.

jku

I've not looked at the implementation yet but this looks very useful 👍

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

jku · 2020-10-21T13:48:30Z

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

+1,600,000 bytes for each target. Using succinct hashed bin delegations,
+the snapshot and targets metadata overhead for a target can be reduced
+to about 550,000 bytes. For more detail about how these overheads were
+calculated, see [this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10AKDsHsM2mmh45CWCNFxihJ9f-SP6gXYv7WcWpt-fDQ/edit#gid=0).


I wonder if a link to google docs is appropriate here? I guess this is tricky to express otherwise and link is better than nothing...

Could you make these items in the spreadsheet clearer: What do "worst case path bytes" and "target filename" refer to specifically?

I'm open to other ways to present this. I thought it was too many calculations for a markdown table.

I also added some comments to the spreadsheet to clarify those terms.

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

This commit removes the 'paths' field when 'path_hash_prefixes' are used and adds an example of delegations metadata using the succinct hashed bin delegation format. It also clarifies the the 'COUNT' term refers to a hexadecimal representation. Signed-off-by: marinamoore <[email protected]>

joshuagl · 2020-11-03T16:09:37Z

If I'm following correctly a delegations object needs either name or succinct_hash_delegations and path_hash_prefixes is optional. If the delegations object includes a succinct_hash_delegations field then any path_hash_prefixes field is ignored.
Is that correct? Can we rewrite the object format for the specification to make this clearer?

Yes, and I agree that we should make this more clear in the object format. However, it'd be nice if we could still relate that succinct_hash_delegations supersedes path_hash_prefixes. I'll think about this some more and see if there's a clear way to relate all of that.

Looking a this with fresh eyes, I think it's more important in the object definition to tie succinct_hash_delegations and path_hash_prefixes together. I've been unable to come up with a better alternative. I think the object format you originally proposed is the most sensible.

mnm678 · 2020-12-15T17:52:17Z

@joshuagl @JustinCappos @trishankatdatadog @lukpueh Can we merge this TAP as a draft? I think the only open question is the use of name vs bin_name_prefix, and that will probably be resolved through some experimenting on the PoC.

trishankatdatadog · 2020-12-16T09:46:31Z

@joshuagl @JustinCappos @trishankatdatadog @lukpueh Can we merge this TAP as a draft? I think the only open question is the use of name vs bin_name_prefix, and that will probably be resolved through some experimenting on the PoC.

Yes, let's get this out ASAP for PyPA, maybe a nice Christmas gift!

joshuagl · 2020-12-16T11:57:23Z

Agreed, would be great to get this TAP implemented in the reference implementation for PyPI to use.
I just filed #132 to track outstanding items for this TAP.

add candidate TAP for succinct hash bin delegations

6b1ccc5

trishankatdatadog reviewed Jul 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Show resolved Hide resolved

joshuagl reviewed Jul 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

mnm678 added 6 commits July 6, 2020 13:15

image -> target and change to markdown formatted block

234a57a

test bold, italics in github markdown block

5630eea

succinct_hash_delegations are prioritized over path_hash_prefixes

3a40ff0

fix line wrapping

fdd079c

hash bin -> hashed bin

190b47b

use html tags for code block formatting

335dc2a

add numbers for metadata size difference

3fbb6f7

add spreadsheet link for metadata overhead calculations

eaebd23

trishankatdatadog reviewed Jul 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

2e6af38

Co-authored-by: Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy <[email protected]>

joshuagl approved these changes Jul 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

trishankatdatadog approved these changes Jul 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

Apply suggestions from code review

fe6b0c0

Co-authored-by: Joshua Lock <[email protected]>

lukpueh reviewed Jul 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

mnm678 and others added 6 commits July 17, 2020 09:07

clarify target files vs targets metadata

5380427

markdown edits

e88a8be

clarifications to bin math

4ebc0e7

Update candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md

73f69c3

Co-authored-by: lukpueh <[email protected]>

remove paragraph about prioritized delegations

486b875

clarify bin prefix calculations

aa88d07

mnm678 mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2020

PoC(tap): Succinct hashed bin delegations theupdateframework/python-tuf#1106

Closed

mnm678 commented Aug 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

joshuagl reviewed Aug 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

joshuagl reviewed Oct 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

candidate-succinct-delegation-tap.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Make 'name' optional if a delegation uses succinct hashed bin delegat…

191dac9

…ions The name field is overwritten by the generated names, so to remove confusion, this field should not be used with succinct hashed bin delegations, Signed-off-by: marinamoore <[email protected]>

joshuagl reviewed Oct 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

jku reviewed Oct 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

trishankatdatadog merged commit fd5671b into theupdateframework:master Dec 16, 2020

joshuagl mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2020

Discussion of TAP 15: Succinct hash bin delegations #132

Open

mnm678 deleted the succinct-delegations branch March 1, 2023 15:14


		This TAP supports the following use case:

		Suppose a single targets file contains a very large number of

Add candidate TAP for succinct hash bin delegations #120

Add candidate TAP for succinct hash bin delegations #120

Conversation

mnm678 commented Jul 2, 2020

trishankatdatadog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mnm678 commented Jul 6, 2020

mnm678 commented Jul 6, 2020

mnm678 commented Jul 7, 2020

trishankatdatadog commented Jul 7, 2020

joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lukpueh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mnm678 Jul 28, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshuagl Aug 24, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshuagl Aug 26, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mnm678 commented Oct 1, 2020

joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mnm678 commented Oct 5, 2020

jku left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshuagl commented Nov 3, 2020

mnm678 commented Dec 15, 2020

trishankatdatadog commented Dec 16, 2020

joshuagl commented Dec 16, 2020

mnm678 Jul 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

joshuagl Aug 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

joshuagl Aug 26, 2020 •

edited

Loading