David Waltermire

We can't do this in 1.x, since it will be a backwards compatible breaking change. I'll add this to 2.0. We can deprecate the merge structure and replace it with...

The property named `marking` was intended to be allowed anywhere a property is allowed. That is how the constraint is defined. This is a feature, not a bug. The bug...

@brian-ruf is not remembering this correctly. Please see [this commit log](https://github.com/usnistgov/OSCAL/pull/619/commits/415297487376e971f5bdcdb139ac474136b2810f) and https://github.com/usnistgov/OSCAL/issues/600. The decision that was implemented was to "allow for a marking value to be provided anywhere that...

Keeping `allow-other="no"` allows OSCAL to control property names that are within its namespace. If others want to add a new property, this forces them to use their own namespace or...

> Thank you for providing the decision record. I was proposing allow-other="yes", not "no". On a brief review, the documentation link does not explain how allow-other should be processed when:...

This issue hasn't received any comments or support from the community. As a result, this issue is being moved to the backlog for future consideration.

This looks like a duplicate of #233.

This is dependent on making progress on #722 and should be follow-on work.

We will post a link to https://github.com/oscal-club/awesome-oscal. This link will have a standard NIST exit page. We will include the standard NIST disclaimer.

This has been answered.