OpenChain-Project/Telco-WG

Issues

• OpenChain Telco SBOM Validator shows no errors, but SPDX is non compliant

  #110 opened 6 days ago by agustingroh
  2

• [Bug] Telco SBOM a Package URL doesn't (always) "uniquely identify software packages"

  #74 opened a year ago by joshuagl
  3

• [Question] PURL field in SPDX

  #72 opened a year ago by winterrocks
  3

• [Question] Notice of Compliance for SBOM requester

  #58 opened a year ago by MasahiroDAIKOKU
  3

• [Improvement] Require purl (Package URL) for packages

  #64 opened a year ago by vargenau
  1

• Question about data format

  #57 opened a year ago by winterrocks
  3

• [Question] Content and quality of SBOMs

  #52 opened a year ago by MasahiroDAIKOKU
  11

• [Improvement] Package checksum (Component hash) missing from the required fields

  #51 opened a year ago by winterrocks
  3

• [Question] The reasons for selecting SPDX

  #50 opened a year ago by MasahiroDAIKOKU
  9

• [Question] Clarification of the difference between the latest human readable SBOM and the previous delivered one

  #55 opened a year ago by MasahiroDAIKOKU
  6

• SBOM signing

  #1 opened 2 years ago by winterrocks
  1

• [Improvement]

  #43 opened 2 years ago by stephenkilbaneadi
  1

• [Improvement]

  #38 opened 2 years ago by Jimmy-ahlberg
  0

• We need a good name for the specification.

  #41 opened 2 years ago by vargenau
  3

• the font size of chapter 3.6 needs to be the same as chapter 3.5, or chapter 3.7

  #35 opened 2 years ago by Marywang00
  1

• [Bug] The specification should state the license.

  #3 opened 2 years ago by stephenkilbaneadi
  5