Notation CLI support for Timestamp Authority signatures

[iamsamirzon]

Summary - Notation client to support TSA signatures and verification support as per RFC 3161
Intended Outcome - The implementation matches with the specification

• As par of this task also fix: Add more validations for timestamp response notation-go#13

[iamsamirzon]

@gokarnm - This is the roadmap item related to timestamping.

[iamsamirzon]

@FeynmanZhou - We discussed this in our NV2 community meeting today. Propose we include the "Sign" part in RC-1 and the "Verify" part of it can come in "RC-2". Do discuss with @shizhMSFT on it.

[FeynmanZhou]

@iamsamirzon
It looks like Notation CLI has supported timestamp, see https://github.com/notaryproject/notation/pull/171/files#diff-4f0565caf9b5f059f3b256722911a83386beb3d5c0dc75b30b6fc91d451e551cR65

[iamsamirzon]

Yes, there was support added back in Alpha-1. This roadmap item is to ensure the implementation ( along with tests) meets the agreed on spec

[FeynmanZhou]

Yes, there was support added back in Alpha-1. This roadmap item is to ensure the implementation ( along with tests) meets the agreed on spec

Okay, we need to verify it for the next step.

[gokarnm]

There are open questions and work related to

• The default TSA to use during signing
• Distribute public TSA roots in a default named trust store x509/tsa/public-tsa
• Improvements to custom CMS verification code for TSA verification

[iamsamirzon]

@shizhMSFT , @dtzar - We need to bring in the signing part back into RC-1. This item is not yet complete for RC-1.

[dtzar]

Looks like this work could be included in whomever implements notaryproject/notation-go#78
I would recommend putting the three bullets from @gokarnm above either into that issue or a separate issue(s) depending on the rough size of the work to be done.

[dtzar]

This issue also relevant to the completion of this item: notaryproject/notation-go#13

[iamsamirzon]

@dtzar - There was an item in the spreadsheet for this , row #22. It is marked green ( to indicate complete), but it is not. @shizhMSFT team was looking to implement this. Lets touch base on this with them