Remove TAP 5 as a short-term solution.

[pattivacek]

Once TAP 13 is approved, we can restore some of this text with references to that as appropriate.

Fixes #189.

This is the simplest, fastest solution. I'm open to other solutions but wanted to get something on the table now.

[iramcdonald]

Hi Patrick, +1 Cheers, - Ira *Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)* *Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF* *Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG* *Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG* *Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434*

…

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:01 AM Patrick Vacek ***@***.***> wrote: Once TAP 13 is approved, we can restore some of this text with references to that as appropriate. Fixes #189 <#189>. This is the simplest, fastest solution. I'm open to other solutions but wanted to get something on the table now. ------------------------------ You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: #196 Commit Summary - Remove TAP 5 as a short-term solution. File Changes - *M* uptane-standard.md <https://github.com/uptane/uptane-standard/pull/196/files#diff-d0850aacd73f9826ca071c021d2c2301025fd95199bc5dc120eacb696588018e> (18) Patch Links: - https://github.com/uptane/uptane-standard/pull/196.patch - https://github.com/uptane/uptane-standard/pull/196.diff — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#196>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE33UO5OSA6MLZN7XKF36KLSTDTTRANCNFSM4UNPJBJA> .

[trishankatdatadog]

Now the problem is: what do we say to people who might have implemented TAP 5?

[pattivacek]

Now the problem is: what do we say to people who might have implemented TAP 5?

Do those people actually exist? How does TUF handle these issues?

[trishankatdatadog]

Do those people actually exist?

I don't know.

How does TUF handle these issues?

This is a problem above TUF.

[iramcdonald]

coHi, Trishank is right that "How does TUF handle these issues?" is a good question, but for Uptane, the problem is above just TUF. If Uptane depends (and it does) on several TAP-n requirements/recommendations, then what happens to existing Uptane implementations (and OEM/supplier attempts in their own OTA solutions to follow the "spirit of Uptane") when we *remove* a TAP-n reference? My gut feeling is this is a slippery slope for backward compatibility to encounter in a minor release (e.g., Uptane v1.1.0). Opinions? Cheers, - Ira *Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)* *Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF* *Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG* *Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG* *Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434*

…

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:44 AM Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy < ***@***.***> wrote: Do those people actually exist? I don't know. How does TUF handle these issues? This is a problem above TUF. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#196 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE33UO7C6T2NLPCIXRHTXBLSTD7VZANCNFSM4UNPJBJA> .

[mnm678]

TAP 5 was only a MAY in the standard, so we should be fine to remove it in a minor release. If implementers are already using it, I don't think this would make their implementation invalid.

[plapczyn]

Once TAP 13 is approved, we can restore some of this text with references to that as appropriate.

Fixes #189.

This is the simplest, fastest solution. I'm open to other solutions but wanted to get something on the table now.

If we plan to remove the TAP 5 reference, I suggest we create a long term issue for adding TAP 13 support in the future.