Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

PCF_21: Should Provenance be recommended or required? #21

Open
JohnMoehrke opened this issue Apr 27, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

PCF_21: Should Provenance be recommended or required? #21

JohnMoehrke opened this issue Apr 27, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
open-issue Open Issue mentioned in the Implementation Guide

Comments

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor

ITI-108 includes requirements to record AuditEvents, using BALP pattern. This is considered sufficient to track inappropriate changes, and is referenced in the Security Considerations. Should there also be requirements to record Provenance on Create, Update, and Delete in addition to AuditEvent?
@JohnMoehrke JohnMoehrke added the open-issue Open Issue mentioned in the Implementation Guide label Apr 27, 2023
@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Seems @mojitoj use-case for clarifying "update" might be a good justification for Provenance. But this is still not all that clear is a requirement. The current specification has examples, but no requirement to create them, and no use-case that uses them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
open-issue Open Issue mentioned in the Implementation Guide
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@JohnMoehrke