Skip to content

Conversation

@thomas-fossati
Copy link
Contributor

@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati commented Jan 30, 2026

Add transparent support for the "lead verifier" mode where the usual challenge-response API accepts verification requests for composite evidence and dispatches them to the CE handler endpoint in VTS.

The existing verification API logic is extended to:

  1. Advertise collection types during content negotiation as well as via the discovery interface.
  2. Recognise requests for collection types that do not have an associated scheme plugin, and forward them to the CE handler.

Fix #368

@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati force-pushed the leadverifier-368 branch 2 times, most recently from 242e420 to c2da15a Compare January 30, 2026 17:13
@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati self-assigned this Jan 30, 2026
@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati added the multi-verifier multi-verifier support label Jan 30, 2026
@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati moved this from Backlog to In review in Lead Verifier Implementation Jan 30, 2026
@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati linked an issue Jan 30, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
}

supportedMediaTypes = append(supportedMediaTypes, supportedCompositeEvidenceMediaTypes...)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Line 410 should say, evidence mediaType not one of Veraison supported Evidence or Composite Evidence Media Types

Copy link
Collaborator

@yogeshbdeshpande yogeshbdeshpande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Started reviewing it, will complete the review tomorrow!!!

// attestation result.
attestationResult, err := o.Verifier.ProcessEvidence(tenantID, session.Nonce,
evidence, mediaType)
var attestationResult []byte
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please correct line 434 to add a bit of description about forwarding the evidence either to a Component Verifier or a Lead Verifier, based on the received evidence media type

Copy link
Collaborator

@yogeshbdeshpande yogeshbdeshpande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! I have made few minor comments for you to have a look!
Also raised a documentation issue in https://github.com/veraison/docs repo due to this change...

Copy link
Collaborator

@yogeshbdeshpande yogeshbdeshpande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

}

isSupported, err := o.Verifier.IsSupportedMediaType(mediaType)
isSupportedMediaType, err := o.Verifier.IsSupportedMediaType(mediaType)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please review comment on Line 319 and 320, we need to correct this to reflect the current state!
// Here we only deal with CMW records and tags. Collection CMWs are
// dealt with in the non-exceptional path.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The content of the comment is not invalidated by the changes in this PR.

Add transparent support for the "lead verifier" mode where the usual
challenge-response API accepts verification requests for composite
evidence and dispatches them to the CE handler endpoint in VTS.

The existing verification API logic is extended to:

1. Advertise collection types during content negotiation, as well as via
   the discovery interface.
2. Recognise requests for collection types that do not have an
   associated scheme plugin, and forward them to the CE handler.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Fossati <[email protected]>
Copy link
Collaborator

@yogeshbdeshpande yogeshbdeshpande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGMT!

@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati merged commit 7302e9d into leadverifier Feb 3, 2026
9 checks passed
@thomas-fossati thomas-fossati deleted the leadverifier-368 branch February 3, 2026 14:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

multi-verifier multi-verifier support

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Lead verifier: Verification API extensions

2 participants