New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[BUG] do not mark additional flavors as an error #574
Comments
The test simply does what the standard says:
|
But does that make sense? I would like to define flavors according to the SCS standard, but they are not specified as recommended or must in the standard. IMO, it makes sense to include all SCS meta information for these flavors as well. |
@garloff Please have a look. We were supposed to discuss it today, but there wasn't time. Our v4 check is currently red as we are adding SCS metadata to flavors that are not listed as mandatory or recommended. I think that should be fine to provide additional flavors. At the moment, we're just not really sure how this is intended in the standard. |
Kurt asked me via e-mail about the rationale, and I think it's not unappropriate to also reproduce my response here:
We would have to refer to some major version, or we would have to introduce some complicated mechanism by which it could be inferred from the context which one would apply. The context could be the certificate scope, but then these two realms would start bleeding into each other, which feels messy to me. |
As discussed yesterday both in personal conversation and the SIG Std/Cert, it seems that this part of the standard (however many reasons it may have) doesn't work for the customers, so with the associated Pull Request we relax the test so as no longer to enforce said part. |
We have additional flavors which are not listed in the SCS standard and which contain all the necessary metadata. If these are present, they should not be marked as errors. The names of the flavors are valid according to the SCS standard.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: