search

enarx-archive / rfcs

Holds RFCS (“Request for Comments”), proposals to improve Enarx
Apache License 2.0
2 stars 9 forks source link

Trust domain intro 00002 #3

Closed MikeCamel closed 3 years ago

MikeCamel commented 4 years ago

Initial drafts for rfc#00002 and rfc#00003 (related topics).

axelsimon commented 4 years ago

Quick note, as per the RFC process (which is now live), this RFC should use the number of its PR, so it should be RFC 00003 :)

npmccallum commented 4 years ago

Having now read them, I think the best way forward is to combine them. The first RFC feels too light and should just be a preface to the second one. After merging them, please use RFC#00003.

MikeCamel commented 4 years ago

I'm reading through the RFCs now. However, there are three major process issues that need to be resolved:

1. You can't file more than one RFC in a single PR.

This was my first PR. Won't do it again.

2. The RFC MUST have the number of the PR that adds it.

Includes or adds? I think we've established (in this thread: https://github.com/enarx/rfcs/pull/19) that this doesn't work if we want to have consecutive RFCs, because of how the numbering of PRs is assigned.

3. The file name format is incorrect.

See below.

Please follow the instructions detailed here:

https://github.com/enarx/rfcs/blob/master/contributing.md#how-to-propose-an-rfc

This was not complete at time of submission, which is why it was wrong. Will change the file name format, however.

MikeCamel commented 4 years ago

Having now read them, I think the best way forward is to combine them. The first RFC feels too light and should just be a preface to the second one. After merging them, please use RFC#00003.

Disagree. #2 stands on its own, and I expect to reference it from other RFCs. #3 is one implementation (the default), but not the only one.

lkatalin commented 4 years ago

This version is a lot more clear than previously. :tada: There are still issues with consistent capitalization in the lists in Enarx use case states; not sure how much we care.

axelsimon commented 3 years ago

I suggest closing this PR as our process has been refined since we started off and his PR doesn't fit. PR #47 addresses the Trust Domain Introduction part of this PR. A new PR will be opened soon for the Trust domains and Enarx part of this PR.

mbestavros commented 3 years ago

Closing per @axelsimon