Conversation
pattivacek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
Co-authored-by: Patrick Vacek <patrickvacek@gmail.com>
|
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 |
We don't have an official way to support this, but leaving the |
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. |
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.