From cf8ac4dd0e4258c2dfc0ba8d6dd48aaaf2ae5ea4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hidde Beydals <hello@hidde.co>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:07:04 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] RFC: document alternatives

Signed-off-by: Hidde Beydals <hello@hidde.co>
---
 rfcs/XXXX-artifact-revision-format/README.md | 16 +++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfcs/XXXX-artifact-revision-format/README.md b/rfcs/XXXX-artifact-revision-format/README.md
index 7f66de2d..5a220cc3 100644
--- a/rfcs/XXXX-artifact-revision-format/README.md
+++ b/rfcs/XXXX-artifact-revision-format/README.md
@@ -221,11 +221,17 @@ apps-source     sha256:e3b0c442  False           True    stored artifact for rev
 
 ### Alternatives
 
-<!--
-List plausible alternatives to the proposal and explain why the proposal is superior.
-
-This is a good place to incorporate suggestions made during discussion of the RFC.
--->
+The two main alternatives around the `Revision` parts in this RFC are to either
+keep the current field value formats as is, or to invent another format. Given
+the [motivation](#motivation) for this RFC outlines the reasoning for not
+keeping the current `Revision` format, and the proposed is a commonly known
+format. Neither strike as a better alternative.
+
+For the changes related to `Checksum` and `Digest`, the alternative is to keep
+the current field name as is, and only change the field value format. However,
+given the naming of the field is more correct with the introduction of the
+algorithm alias, and now is the time to make last (breaking) changes to the
+API. This does not strike as a better alternative.
 
 ## Design Details