Skip to content

Conversation

@mnm678
Copy link
Collaborator

@mnm678 mnm678 commented Nov 20, 2019

I removed mentions of sha256 per #67 and redid the metadata overhead calculations.

Please double check my math on the metadata calculations.

Copy link

@joshuagl joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor nit, otherwise looks good.

Co-Authored-By: Joshua Lock <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@lukpueh lukpueh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I cross-checked the numbers with the updated spreadsheet, and they add up. There's a typo in one formula (see inline suggestions). Other than that LGTM! :)

Co-Authored-By: lukpueh <[email protected]>
@lukpueh lukpueh merged commit 7939f6e into secure-systems-lab:1st-draft Nov 22, 2019
lukpueh pushed a commit to lukpueh/peps that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2019
secure-systems-lab#71 removed
sha256 hashes from targets metadata and correctly updated the
metadata calculation in the tables, but not in the text.

This commit updates the relevant numbers in the text.

It further fixes an unrelated wording mistake in the metadata
calc section.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants