I propose to introduce a new conformance profile, “producer”, to capture the requirements that are common to both direct producers and converters. For details, please see Issue #104 . The change draft is: ChangeDrafts/Active/sarif-v2.0-issue-104-producer-profile.docx Most of you probably won’t care about this. For those of you who do, please go through this change carefully . I took the opportunity to make a few editorial changes, for example: I now always write “SARIF producer” or “SARIF consumer” rather than just “producer” or “consumer”, because IMO it makes the normative requirements easier to spot. Exception: If I have occasion to write “producer” several times in the same paragraph, I write out “SARIF producer” only the first time. I rephrased “the tool that produces the SARIF log file” to “the SARIF producer” in several places. It’s shorter, and it makes it easier to spot the normative requirements. In several places, I changed “static analysis tools” to “analysis tools” because ultimately I believe this spec will support dynamic analysis tools, and I don’t think there’s any reason to gratuitously use language which limits its applicability. I changed certain requirements from passive voice to active voice, making it clear that they are normative requirements on SARIF producers, rather than on the log file format. For example, I changed this: In a log file produced by a converter, the semanticVersion property SHALL be absent. … to this: A converter SHALL NOT emit the semanticVersion property. Thanks, Larry