Hi Adam,
Yes, we should revisit that decision. The motivation for removing the key was as follows:
- The âtypeâ for the credential value provided using the âcredentialâ keyword was âtosca.datatypes.Credentialâ, which is defined in the Simple Profile. Since the Simple Profile types
are no longer part of the TOSCA standard, we could no longer use that type. There were proposals made to use some sort of opaque type, but those proposals have not yet been agreed on.
- Repository definitions are the only TOSCA abstractions that require credentials. However, in real-world deployments, all entities that one communicates with require credentials.
Should we look at security/privacy/admission control in a broader context first, before deciding on a specific solution for repositories?
In any event, youâre correct that this is something that needs to be addressed.
Thanks,
Chris
From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of adam souzis
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 12:54 PM
To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tosca] comment on WD02, Rev04: Eliminated the credential keyname from the repository definition
One thing I noticed reviewing WD02 on the call today was the removal of the credentials key from repository definitions. In order to support container image artifacts, Unfurl let's you define container registries as repositories and it
needs those credentials to be able access a private registry (which are quite common). So are we sure we want to remove this?
Thanks,
Adam
á