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
At the meeting on the 11th of December, some of us suggested adding more examples (directly or indirectly) to the SLSA specification. These examples should be marked as non-normative inside the spec so that we can update them easily without following the usual SLSA spec publication process.
Any thoughts on that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
While I feel like adding additional examples will help comprehension and illuminate reasoning to extend beyond other situations (i.e. we can show the thought process behind the rationalizations), I would be cautious to add non-normative content to the specification as I foresee that these would likely increase in number and therefore lengthen the content length for the specification itself.
I wasn't on the call today, it looks like the topic of normative examples came up as well (in @lehors's topic on URIs in provenance format).
Is there some consideration of when we might need additional normative/non-normative examples?
At the meeting on the 11th of December, some of us suggested adding more examples (directly or indirectly) to the SLSA specification. These examples should be marked as non-normative inside the spec so that we can update them easily without following the usual SLSA spec publication process.
Any thoughts on that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: