Al

This is just me spit-balling. I was looking into some simple things to get into and saw this bug in the issue tracker. Not sure what and where you had...

Howdy, I read up on #635 to get current on a long hiatus and wanted to know how I and/or other members of the oscal.club community can pitch in to...

> next meeting 2pm Eastern on 8/9 (meeting notes and details links in the first post are still valid). We also chat in the CNCF slack in #tag-security-controls. Now would...

Let me look into your code and see how I can potentially improve your test suite this weekend. I am not so strong in Javascript.

OK, feedback rolled in, and ready for final review. I hope to discuss tomorrow during model meeting if possible. cc @david-waltermire-nist @wendellpiez

Per feedback from Dave, I need to improve the documentation for the new assembly, fields, and flags before finalizing and removing the draft tag.

After a second pass, it seems adding other documentation strings will be too wordy and add unnecessary content. I think this is ready for the NIST OSCAL Team to review....

OK, I think this is ready. I addressed feedback above in https://github.com/usnistgov/OSCAL/commit/fe39f58a92b5a8160b2b68f5b05e701ff1ef7dbc but also added some missing `formal-name`s and other things I should probably add. Let me know if you...

And woops, last amend was because of a typo in universally in one doc string, but now we should be good.

> If this is linked to `@ns` would it be better to call it `action/@name` not `action/@type`? When we met to discuss the PR, Dave suggested that `@ns` was only...