Re: [Cacao] Call for CACAO Charter Consensus

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

In general, I think that the charter is probably okay, but I feel that my
concerns below should be addressed early in the WG process.

I have some difficulties understanding the "protocol" part of the charter,
which I have clipped below the questions.

    > 1.  Do you support this charter text (full text also provided at the
    > end of email or at [1])?  Please submit objections or blocking concerns
    > to the list.

I feel very uncertain about what shape some of the products of the WG will take.

    > 2.  Are you willing to author or participate in the development of the
    > drafts of this WG?

Not sure, I am concerned that there will be many references to other SDOs whose
documents are not freely available, and this will significantly reduce
understanding.  I.e. I may be simply unable to author or participate.

    > 3.  Are you willing to help review the drafts of this WG?

See above.

    > 4.  Are you interested in implementing drafts of this WG?

Yes.


    > 3. the sharing and distribution of COAs across organizational
    > boundaries and technology stacks that may include PROTOCOLS, apis,
    > interfaces and other related technology to support sharing.

...

    > This solution will contain (at a minimum) a standard JSON based data
    > model, a defined set of functional capabilities and associated
    > interfaces, and a PROTOCOL. This solution will also provide a data
    > model for systems to confirm the status of the COA execution, however,
    > it will be agnostic of how the COA is implemented by the system.

====

What I understand from the below is that I2NSF will provide the underlying
functions for the playbooks to invoke.  We won't have to invent an
abstraction of a router and firewall, because I2NSF already has done that.

    > Where possible the working group will consider existing efforts, like
    > OASIS OpenC2 and IETF I2NSF that define the atomic actions to be
    > included in a process or sequence. The working group will not consider
    > how shared actions are used/enforced, except where a response is
    > expected for a specific action or step.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-