You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the most recent community meeting there was a sidebar discussion on the complexity of implementing TUF and how several TAPs (specifically TAP 4 and TAP 8) increase complexity for optional features.
As part of the discussion I proposed that we add an additional TAP status, or update the accepted status, to include a notion of a TAP which is reviewed and approved but, due to its optional nature, is considered supplementary to the specification and is not destined to become a part of the core specification document.
During the discussion the following pros and cons were discussed:
Pros
implementation simplicity and safety for those only interested in the core TUF functionality of today
Cons
confusion in how implementations/adoptions communicate which combination of TUF + TAPs are implemented
this potentially makes it harder to find a TUF implementation which suits all of an adopters needs
testing combinations of features is harder
unclear what this means for the reference implementation(s)
FWIW some of these cons (i.e., compatibility across implementations, lack of clarity around what exactly a TUF implementation implements) already exist today.
Filing this issue as a place to continue this discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the most recent community meeting there was a sidebar discussion on the complexity of implementing TUF and how several TAPs (specifically TAP 4 and TAP 8) increase complexity for optional features.
As part of the discussion I proposed that we add an additional TAP status, or update the accepted status, to include a notion of a TAP which is reviewed and approved but, due to its optional nature, is considered supplementary to the specification and is not destined to become a part of the core specification document.
During the discussion the following pros and cons were discussed:
Pros
Cons
FWIW some of these cons (i.e., compatibility across implementations, lack of clarity around what exactly a TUF implementation implements) already exist today.
Filing this issue as a place to continue this discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: