*0) Open* How to create code-first patch for spec? Current process is to create markdown file according to https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/issues/new?template=code_first.yml E.g. In [edk2-staging]( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging ( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging ) ) repo, we can create [UEFI_PQC_CodeFirstSpec]( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFI_PQC_CodeFirstSpec ) branch and archive all PQC related MD file there. (or create doc dir for [UEFI_PQC]( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFI_PQC ( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFI_PQC ) ) branch).
Sean is working on a proposal to make UEFI spec rst file public, so that we can submit spec patch directly. That will make code first spec work much easier. We can wait for UEFI direction and decide the next step next week. *2) Discuss the prototype use case and exit criteria.* Current status: we enable the feature one by one in [UEFI_PQC]( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFI_PQC ( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFI_PQC ) ) branch. Criteria: Create prototype and integration level test for each individual item according to https://github.com/orgs/tianocore/projects/10. The exception: A) The item is spec language clean up. B) The item is to deprecate or remove an unimplemented feature. We also need a plan for EDK2 repo. It will not be one big patch. It will not be a serial patch as is (from edk2-staging directly). The final patch for EDK2 may include reorg, redesign, squash (multiple change for one place), skip (test-only code), etc based on an individual feature. We need to follow EDK2 process. *3) Discuss new item* *https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/issues/12541* ( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/issues/12541 ) ** dbt was not used before and will NOT be used by Windows. Same in Linux. Attendees agreed that dbt is NOT needed and can be deprecated. Do we want to deprecate or remove dbt? EDK2 has code to deal with dbt. But the code seems not to be used in the production environment. Not sure if that works. Trending to remove, since there is no such usage. How do we handle TimeOfRevocation field? For the existing data structure (handled in this issue), we still leave the field there for compatibility. But the code can just ignore that. *AR: Sean* - to add some text for that. For the new data structure (handled in other issue - remove SignatureOwner), we will remove TimeOfRevocation as well. *AR: Peter* - to submit code first issue for the SignatureOwner removal proposal. *4) Review* *https://github.com/orgs/tianocore/projects/10* ( https://github.com/orgs/tianocore/projects/10 ) *and assign owner/update status.* Postpone one week for the process. Other: *AR: Jiewen* to notify TCG PC Client for PFP spec change for UEFI PQC. *AR: Jiewen* to notify DMTF RedFish for SecureBootDatabases Properties change. Thank you Yao, Jiewen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#121908): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/121908 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119191801/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
