Closed
Conversation
vrajmohan
reviewed
Nov 6, 2025
Contributor
vrajmohan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a Herculean task that is hard to review. Have you considered an approach that has more steps that can be progressively deployed?
Contributor
Author
|
@vrajmohan i have thought about it, but it's embedded in a lot of code, making it pretty tough to remove piecemeal. i also worry, based on shifting priorities and such, that leaving it to be piecemeal means that some parts of it are never removed or get forgotten about happy to take suggestions about how you might approach it in a step-by-step fashion, though, if you have any! i won't have time before i go on vacation, but could reconsider when i get back |
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
DO NOT MERGE YET
🎫 Ticket
Link to the relevant ticket:
LG-XXXXX
-->
🛠 Summary of changes
PR to remove vectors of trust when our final partner migrates to acr_values
Note:
The EIPP implementation relies on vectors of trust. This does not seem to be the right approach, as when I talked to them about it months ago, it sounded like EIPP was not evaluated on a per-request level. However, it was never updated for a new implementation, and then development was cancelled.
I don't want to make any decisions regarding EIPP, and it sounds like it might be a feature that comes back. Therefore, I mostly just marked the related specs as
pendingso that the team can make decisions about how to update it when the time comes.TODO:
rename files to remove
Votfrom namespacing