This, along with all edits in answer to AD commentss, is corrected in the working copy. I’ll post that update in the next day or so, barring new comments from other ADs.
Eliot > On 27 Apr 2023, at 00:50, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for working on this specification. > > I also stumbled upon "sbom" and "vuln" nodes in section 1.2. I assumed these > refers to the nodes in the YANG tree sbom node = starts with sbom- and vuln > node = starts with vuln- .... yes that I had to guess to continue reading. Now > I see Roman has a discuss on this point hence supporting the discuss. I > believe > evenif it might be a convention call those node as I assumed, we could be more > clear by actually describing the notion in the doc. And if my assumption is > wrong then we definitely need to describe the nodes so that readers like me > don't make wrong assumption :-). > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
