Script updating archive at 2023-08-03T01:02:51Z. [ci skip]

archive.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2023-08-01T01:08:52.216261+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2023-08-03T01:02:48.837860+00:00",
   "repo": "vcstuff/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -2833,6 +2833,54 @@
       "mergeCommit": null,
       "comments": [],
       "reviews": []
+    },
+    {
+      "number": 49,
+      "id": "PR_kwDOJZ2aqs5XChB5",
+      "title": "chore: initial commit for ttl langugage",
+      "url": "https://github.com/vcstuff/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list/pull/49",
+      "state": "OPEN",
+      "author": "mprorock",
+      "authorAssociation": "NONE",
+      "assignees": [],
+      "labels": [],
+      "body": "## \ud83d\udcd1 Description\r\nadds support for `ttl` instructions for consumers/verifiers - this is important, especially with signed lists to separate the requirement to sign and reissue from when a client or cdn needs to fetch a fresh copy of the list",
+      "createdAt": "2023-08-02T18:46:01Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2023-08-02T23:31:09Z",
+      "baseRepository": "vcstuff/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list",
+      "baseRefName": "main",
+      "baseRefOid": "70e860b9cd190741593d92cd0b8e27394137bda9",
+      "headRepository": "mesur-io/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list",
+      "headRefName": "feature/ttl",
+      "headRefOid": "81ad79e419267529b1b99832d58d60978c5679e8",
+      "closedAt": null,
+      "mergedAt": null,
+      "mergedBy": null,
+      "mergeCommit": null,
+      "comments": [
+        {
+          "author": "paulbastian",
+          "authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
+          "body": "Is that the same mechanism that we intended for `exp` or what are the intended differences?",
+          "createdAt": "2023-08-02T18:48:38Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2023-08-02T18:48:38Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "c2bo",
+          "authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
+          "body": "We definitely need to improve the wording in the draft on this - the intention was to use the default `exp` claim to signal the freshness requirements of the issuer. Advantage of this would be that it basically comes for free if you use a standard JWT library (which should already check for expiration). \r\nDo you see a benefit in having both `exp` and `ttl` or the need for different meanings/usage?",
+          "createdAt": "2023-08-02T19:22:27Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2023-08-02T19:31:55Z"
+        },
+        {
+          "author": "mprorock",
+          "authorAssociation": "NONE",
+          "body": "> We definitely need to improve the wording in the draft on this - the intention was to use the default `exp` claim to signal the freshness requirements of the issuer. Advantage of this would be that it basically comes for free if you use a standard JWT library (which should already check for expiration). Do you see a benefit in having both `exp` and `ttl` or the need for different meanings/usage?\r\n\r\ndefinitely a need for both:\r\n`exp` indicates that the issuer will reissue status no later than such and such date\r\n`ttl` is an instruction for the client side, or the cdn side as to how often to fetch a fresh copy\r\n\r\nThese two values may be in sync in some cases, but not always.  consider the case where a jwt may need status checked frequently, but the status changes are infrequent - the isssuer should not need to re-sign a status as frequently as they wish the client to check for a new copy.  pretty common issue in the supply chain arena, and others.  \r\nthink of `exp` as the renewal date for a dns registration itself, and `ttl` as the `ttl` on a dns record\r\n\r\nedit: also want to note, that a side effect of this, is that if ttl is not set, it basically defaults to ttl and works well for a lot of cases where you would just want an off the shelf jwt processing, or where caching of status, perhaps on external systems is not a concern",
+          "createdAt": "2023-08-02T23:29:37Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2023-08-02T23:31:09Z"
+        }
+      ],
+      "reviews": []
     }
   ]
 }