[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SLPF Comment Resolution: Request agreement on adding text to explain why an actuator (without specifiers) might be included in a command
All, Phillip Royer made a comment during the public review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/openc2-comment/201811/msg00006.html The gist of the comment was to add text to the example to explain why the actuator field was populated in the sample command A github issue was created https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter/issues/24 I attempted to resolve the comment with the following change: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter/pull/42 If you object to the wording in the pull request, please provide your comments via email or via the github issue. Barring any objections, I would like to report to the TC that the SC recommends this resolution Thank you VR Joe B Joe Brule Engineering (Y2D122) FNX-3, B4A335 410.854.4045 'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorum...' I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]