Remove references to artifact manifest and artifact manfiest #407
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Bracken Dawson <[email protected]>
brackendawson
requested review from
dmcgowan,
jzelinskie,
jonjohnsonjr,
jdolitsky,
mikebrow,
stevvooe,
sudo-bmitch and
vbatts
as code owners
| @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ Client and registry implementations SHOULD expect to be able to support manifest | |||
|
|
|||
| ###### Pushing Manifests with Subject | |||
|
|
|||
| When processing a request for an image or artifact manfiest with the `subject` field, a registry implementation that supports the [referrers API](#listing-referrers) MUST respond with the response header `OCI-Subject: <subject digest>` to indicate to the client that the registry processed the request's `subject`. | |||
| When processing a request for an image manifest with the `subject` field, a registry implementation that supports the [referrers API](#listing-referrers) MUST respond with the response header `OCI-Subject: <subject digest>` to indicate to the client that the registry processed the request's `subject`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| When processing a request for an image manifest with the `subject` field, a registry implementation that supports the [referrers API](#listing-referrers) MUST respond with the response header `OCI-Subject: <subject digest>` to indicate to the client that the registry processed the request's `subject`. | |
| When processing a request for a manifest with the `subject` field, a registry implementation that supports the [referrers API](#listing-referrers) MUST respond with the response header `OCI-Subject: <subject digest>` to indicate to the client that the registry processed the request's `subject`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We haven't approved the subject field on the index manifest yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok.. either way is there benefit to restricting the MUST to image manifest... noting the section title is the broader Manifests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't that require registries to parse manifests for a field that may not have been included in the image-spec?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes I believe so.. Though my generalization was more to reduce complexity in the wording here for when/if subject is added to index... I didn't contemplate that this push MUST was an implied but only for genuine oci.image.manifest.v1+json manifests with said subject field (implying as of v1.1.0).. hmm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm with Brandon on this specific one, it would introduces another ambiguity. Also bordering on scope creep here, my aim was to not say "artifact manifest in the document", the previous version did explicitly list the manifests it applied to.
Co-authored-by: Mike Brown <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Bracken <[email protected]>
No description provided.