From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Eliot Lear <[email protected]> Sent: 02 September 2022 13:10
Thank you Henk and chairs. I have a favor to ask participants. Give this document a good read again. Even though we are past WGLC, as an author I would still be delighted if you have comments. SBOMs are a pretty big deal. While the IETF isn't going to define a format, network discovery and transmission methods as well as our security expertise can really help. <tp> A brief look at CoB on a Friday afternoon: YANG registration is not in two parts as RFC8407 requires. RFC8407 is a poor reference for YANG tree diagrams which have an RFC all to themselves I know what C2 is but wonder if it has the same meaning here - an explanation would be good. 6991 must be a Normative Reference in the I-D as per RFC8407 ISO/IEC 19970-2 should be Normative Reference web URL is ood; should be https://datatracker Copyright is ood YANG file date is ood 'Simplified BSD' is ood; should be Revised coap could so with a reference to an RFC both in the body and in the module http has just gained a raft of new RFC so I would reference one or more of them too the introduction to the examples could explain what 65443 is does 'http' match the pattern 'https?' ? Tom Petch Eliot On 02.09.22 13:56, Henk Birkholz wrote: > Thanks Eliot, > > I've reviewed the changes and can confirm that the highlighted > comments are addressed adequately. > > @OPSAWG: please comment, if you discover any open issues. While the > secdir review is still in progress, we can make use of that time. > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > On 01.09.22 14:11, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The intent of this draft was to address all WGLC comments. I hope >> that we have. One major change based on Joe's comments: >> >> We moved from enums to identities in one case. In doing so we pulled >> out support for openc2, because it can easily be added back in later. >> >> Jean Camp asked for an archive node, so we added that. >> >> Please check my work. >> >> Eliot >> >> On 01.09.22 14:02, [email protected] wrote: _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
