Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 2 / 7
Suggested Change:Â Change "specification describes" to "document specifies"
Justification:ÂÂSpecifying is a stronger word that 'describe' and 'this specification specifies...' reads poorly
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 5 / 10
Suggested Change:Â Delete "one or more" in phrase "should select one or more transfer specifications"
Justification:ÂÂRunning dual or multiple stacks is probably going to be an edge case, so no need to highlight it here when simply stating selecting transfer specifications concisely captures the thought.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 6 / 21
Suggested Change:Â Add non-normative references to IACD documentsÂ
Justification:Â IACD papers by Willette and Herring should be non-normative references in all OpenC2 specifications.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 7 / 17
Suggested Change:Â Add "or targets" into phrase "may define command arguments [or targets] that are relevant"
Justification:Â Consistency of actuator profile description across OpenC2 specifications.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 7 / 40-41
Suggested Change: Reword sentence describing layering as notional for greater clarify. Suggestion: "Note that the layering of implementation aspects in the diagram is notional, and not intended to preclude any particular approach to implementing the needed functionality (for example, the use of an application-layer message signature function to provide message source authentication and integrity)."
Justification:Â Reword to be more general, with illustrative example
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 8 / 1-34
Suggested Change:ÂÂRemove references to the subcommittees in the figure
Justification:ÂÂThe section addresses scope of the different specifications, the organization of the TC is not relevant in that context.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 8 / 37
Suggested Change:Â Change "transport" to "transfer" in phrase "as a transport mechanism for"
Justification:Â Application layer protocols describe information transfer (ref: SMTP, FTP), whereas transport is a Layer 4 function.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]: 8 / 42-43
Suggested Change: Reword sentence "This specification provides ..." to address audiences beyond implementers. Suggestion: "This specification provides guidance for selection of TLS versions and options when utilizing HTTPS for OpenC2 message transport."
Justification:ÂÂMore that just the implementation community, can also provide guidance to system integrator, even architects and acquisition community.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 8 / 43
Suggested Change:Â Delete sentence starting "In includes guidance ..."
Justification:Â Addressed in rewording suggested for lines 42-43.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 11 / 1-29
Suggested Change:Â Remove "JSON" from description of command and response messages in Figure 2.
Justification:ÂÂWe should keep the diagram as general as practical and NOT preclude other serializations.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 12 / 1-32
Suggested Change:Â Remove "JSON" from description of command and response messages in Figure 3.
Justification:Â We should keep the diagram as general as practical and NOT preclude other serializations.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 17 / 10-22
Suggested Change:Â Make all section references in the conformance clause list live links.
Justification:Â Greater consistency of presentation and improved usability of the specification document.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 17 / 35
Suggested Change:Â Add "...Âin HTTP-date format as defined by RFC 7231" to the phrase "Carried in th HTTP Date header"
Justification: Clarity and consistency with the requirements in Section 3. NOTE: I consider this administrative because it isn't adding anything to the requirements already in the specification.
Resolution:ÂÂ
Page(s) / [Line Number(s)]:Â 19 / 43-44
Suggested Change:Â Add a closing brace to the example response.
Justification:Â Brackets are unbalanced in the PDF example.
Resolution:ÂÂ