Skip to content

[WIP] Add POUF template#3

Open
mnm678 wants to merge 4 commits into
uptane:masterfrom
mnm678:pouf-template
Open

[WIP] Add POUF template#3
mnm678 wants to merge 4 commits into
uptane:masterfrom
mnm678:pouf-template

Conversation

@mnm678

@mnm678 mnm678 commented Jun 18, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

To address some discussion during the 5/22 Uptane workshop about the usability of POUFs, I added a POUF template that lists all of the MAYs and SHOULDs from the standard that should be addressed by a POUF. I would appreciate any feedback on this approach.

@pattivacek pattivacek left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The general idea looks good to me. Most of my suggestions are just capitalization issues based on the style guide; sorry for the deluge. There are also a couple points that I think should get rephrased because they imply that requirements in the Standard are merely suggestions.

Also, any reason to link to the 1.0.0 version instead of 1.0.1?

Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated

@zabbal zabbal left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, excellent clarification.

Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
Comment thread POUF-template.md Outdated
@cwaldren

cwaldren commented Jul 7, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This is really quite helpful, thank you for putting it together.

Is there a standard way to indicate that a POUF does not implement Uptane yet? Would that mean leaving Uptane Version Implemented: blank, or using a particular string to indicate non-compliance?

@mnm678

mnm678 commented Jul 7, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Is there a standard way to indicate that a POUF does not implement Uptane yet? Would that mean leaving Uptane Version Implemented: blank, or using a particular string to indicate non-compliance?

We don't have an official way to support this, but leaving the Uptane Version Implemented blank would be a good way to indicate that the POUF hasn't yet implemented all the features in Uptane. It might also be good to include a note in the abstract.

@JustinCappos

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Is there a standard way to indicate that a POUF does not implement Uptane yet? Would that mean leaving Uptane Version Implemented: blank, or using a particular string to indicate non-compliance?

We don't have an official way to support this, but leaving the Uptane Version Implemented blank would be a good way to indicate that the POUF hasn't yet implemented all the features in Uptane. It might also be good to include a note in the abstract.

I agree that some note (as obvious as possible) is a great idea.

But we also really don't do much but just assign the POUF number, right? We could hold off from actually assigning the number until a POUF is compliant.

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.

5 participants