Expand IICP and IETF draft feature crosswalk - #254
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2b612d17a9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| | Negative/security vectors | Published project-owned refusal, ticket and resource-boundary cases | Not identified | Not identified | Not identified | Not applicable | Not applicable | | ||
| | Standalone black-box runner | Directory profiles and offline evidence checks | Not identified | Not identified | Not identified | Not applicable | Not applicable | | ||
| | Release-integrity tooling | Manifest and validation tools | Not identified | Not identified | Not identified | Not applicable | Not applicable | | ||
| | Packaged component releases | Independently versioned project releases | Not identified | Not identified | Not identified | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new maturity table treats packaged component releases as a separate evidence dimension, but standards/protocol-comparison-v1.json remains unchanged and its implementation_evidence.dimensions includes only release_integrity, not packaged releases. Consumers using the linked machine-readable comparison therefore cannot reproduce this row or its per-protocol conclusions, despite the prose stating that the evidence rows record the table's sources and limitations. Add a corresponding dimension and validation coverage, or fold this row into an existing represented dimension.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Why
The September comparison had a maturity table but its feature-by-feature distinction was too compressed for readers comparing IICP with IAIP, AIDIP and CIRP.
Changes
Validation
No protocol, published release, production, qualification or IETF submission change. Tracks #40.