Atul Tulshibagwale

> Returning a 400 if the delivery method is not supported. I looked through the 4xx error codes. Can we suggest providing a reason phrase with the code to delineate...

The current language says "errors are reported...", which makes the current behavior the equivalent of a "MUST", changing this will break backward compatibility. There is no evidence right now that...

> > The current language says "errors are reported...", which makes the current behavior the equivalent of a "MUST", changing this will break backward compatibility. There is no evidence right...

Hi Marco, That time works for me. How long should the presentation be? Thanks, Atul On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 12:45 AM Marco De Benedictis < ***@***.***> wrote: >...

Hi Marco, Thanks for the update. I will be joining the meeting using the Zoom link that I got from the CNCF Security TAG calendar. Let me know if I...

The 10 AM PT slot has the name "North America..." for the Oct 2nd meeting. I suppose that is the correct one (not EMEA)? On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at...

Thank you, Security TAG for your time today. If you have any questions please let me know in this issue or email me at [email protected]. Please also let me know...

> Push and Pull are delivery mechanisms defined outside the SSF spec. We should not introduce new aspects specifically targeting a single delivery mechanism in the SSF spec Since the...

We could add language to say this behavior is recommended, but not required. That keeps backward compatibility

We are not considering making the "CAEP Interoperability profile" a final spec in this round, so I will drop the "v1Final" label on this issue.