Re: [mile] [EXT] WGLC for Vulnerability extension draft

Two more nits. When these and Danny's edits/questions are addressed, this
document is ready to move forward.

Thanks,
Jess

Section1: The sentence that starts "This extension does not attempt to
solve the vulnerability data format issue" is a run on sentence.

Section 3- The sentence that starts with "Note again" is a run on .

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:34 PM Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org> wrote:

> Hi Nancy and Stephen,
>
>
>
> I have some minor nits and questions.
>
>
>
>    - Abstract
>       - Is “Vulnerability” a defined term?
>    - Section 2
>       - Should this also reference RFC 8174?
>    - Section 3
>       - Change “Note again…any information that in is the abstract
>       realm…” to “Note again…any information that is in the abstract realm…”.
>    - Section 4
>       - Change “JSON based” to “JSON-based”.
>
>
>
> Beyond that, I am comfortable with moving this draft forward.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> *From: *mile <mile-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Nancy Cam-Winget
> (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM
> *To: *"mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXT] [mile] WGLC for Vulnerability extension draft
>
>
>
> Fellow MILE participants,
>
>
>
> This is a Working Group Last Call for
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-rolie-vuln/
>
>
>
> Please provide your review and feedback to the draft’s readiness by Oct 21
> st so that we can move it forward.
>
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
>                 Nancy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> mile@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile
>