# **Decision Log Template (DSAC-DLT)**

**Document Owner:** DSAC Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Secretary

**Purpose:** This template provides a mandatory, standardized structure for documenting all non-trivial decisions related to the DSAC Specification, standards, policies, and architecture. It ensures transparency, provides historical context, and formalizes the outcome of debates.

## **1\. Decision Header**

| Field | Description |
| :---- | :---- |
| **Decision ID (DL-YYYYMMDD-\#\#\#)** | A unique, sequential identifier (e.g., DL-20251115-001). |
| **Status** | MUST be one of: Accepted, Rejected, Superseded, or Deferred. |
| **Date of Decision** | The date the formal vote or consensus was reached. |
| **Proponent / Author** | The individual or Working Group who formally proposed the change. |
| **Related Documents** | Links to relevant PRs, discussion threads, or standard documents affected (e.g., CSS, Audit Template). |

## **2\. Decision Details**

### **2.1 Title and Summary**

**Title:** A concise, descriptive title (e.g., "Mandating Ed25519 for DSAC Signing").

**Summary (Non-Technical):** A brief, plain-language explanation of what was decided and the immediate impact on the specification. This is intended for rapid communication to the general community.

### **2.2 Context and Problem Statement**

A detailed description of the problem or gap the decision aims to address. Why was this discussion necessary?

* *Example: "The initial draft lacked a specific cryptographic algorithm, creating interoperability risk for implementers."*

### **2.3 Options Considered**

A list of alternative solutions discussed, including the pros and cons of each.

* *Example Option 1: Use RSA-PSS. Pros: Wide familiarity. Cons: Larger signature size, complexity of key management.*

### **2.4 Final Decision and Rationale**

The final, approved technical or policy conclusion. This section MUST be detailed and provide the justification for selecting the chosen option over the alternatives.

* *Key Rationale Points:* (e.g., security benefits, performance implications, maintainability).

### **2.5 Implementation Plan**

A high-level overview of the work required to implement the decision, including necessary changes to existing documentation, code, or tools.

* *Action Items:* (e.g., Update cryptographic\_signing\_standard.md to reference Ed25519; notify implementers via the mailing list).

## **3\. Approval and History**

| Committee | Vote Count (For/Against/Abstain) | Approving Members |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **TSC** | X/Y/Z | List of TSC members who voted 'For'. |
| **ACWG** (if relevant) | X/Y/Z | List of ACWG members who voted 'For'. |

**Decision History:**

* (2025-11-01): Initial draft proposed by Jane Doe.  
* (2025-11-10): Debate on key size limits deferred.

*(Attach a raw copy of the final decision motion or relevant meeting minutes here.)*