We could improve the following aspects of requirements and versions:
- Better unique identification of each requirement
- Better documentation of Which version of EBBR introduced each requirement
This would ease linking an EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE EBBR GUID to a set of requirements.
This has been reported by @xypron on the ML.
E-mail extract:
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a client
looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Currently U-Boot only presents the EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We
should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements indicating
in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
This is somewhat related with #118, too.
We could improve the following aspects of requirements and versions:
This would ease linking an EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE EBBR GUID to a set of requirements.
This has been reported by @xypron on the ML.
E-mail extract:
This is somewhat related with #118, too.