Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] please see draft-lear-opsawg-ol on licensing

L Jean Camp <ljeanc@gmail.com> Fri, 04 June 2021 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ljeanc@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569D43A198D; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6y7Kd7gHwTrZ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc33.google.com (mail-oo1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4EDC3A198A; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id x22-20020a4a62160000b0290245cf6b7feeso2387040ooc.13; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3zPpcTnCAQIl1Lp6HwUIl+7uBZZclmZ1iwtneAYWaHs=; b=TJMcTczjdkVzSiiXbVPpmDZjcCdZ1vZZGDrjDT1hw7OGEsCJkSzii99kECR/eua4MB 6bnTRFkecG0gqNHPRowPOWOHApPnlc2wXE7ABJfM4LhXJE7er57zZDZzI+TBoB/QkpPe wx5NNQ0Ec75Lsl5FNPI5lQ3X4pqRhn0Oqi0OYAdfU3H8iTPgWBXnSQqIQdosXGAIqT27 uZAmLF0kt/sMhW+e1n4cLZcg757luGJK/DXCg6ISydMCjWFojaPF0FN6GiLL0RUIXqhM VZpE0yqNRptfe2+mjIsf/+n/Gk7/vU9/RbRu4EFNXRphhz9kpSSFffu9Bzk22I6kdzPZ XHKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3zPpcTnCAQIl1Lp6HwUIl+7uBZZclmZ1iwtneAYWaHs=; b=FRW3TqpOEqQ6MCVfHf0MCRese5W2HgmB6VObQv76xpKel6dQbYqW72yrQvi7lM7tQB 8TxhekngLc5mUdiPbldAyddwd6zw8kbziHb8jtwr2IhdEJpzfryWie83j0ibCSokgNkK nQU6kHNLY8Q5DgG9Dy++yzccT8TeAgYYninvzrLbGYlep5QNeVgBVynArjM/4tJ80VRz 8OBN28guyKCEZ88M2P5WakiQc3AY/giVft6C9tBMDNiYIBxid/IfbY324o2mT9mm0how r6VkxNzYmhfl8d/80kiTfYdwtIWqYcS1VNTa04onBp7wYlcv7l2X5FYWiBSFIRdJX3ly ku/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mravs2AqvAWsJYIC7kQPXkSJ0HqjY0vRwAc5XwWfUNDcIBGXV 4ro17pxBdj7WMJ2kB5fJ/xyPeAj7TLB0TEucyGg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmilcVrsf/fZxnE//Cou2Ekbpt2AazHXAKnDjPKPge/ldtdpLwwZp/pECIkpJ3gHmAHxDSCglPpVmO2xx9smU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:54e:: with SMTP id n14mr4340645ooj.49.1622826567411; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 10:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <340b29f4-e867-6a5d-b45c-8c8b9e45eb47@lear.ch> <CACQRC40oYOBTL7Yw9uFF1WwTv+u4AmJxfc-h8dhZkh5+TVyU-w@mail.gmail.com> <70188F34-2E70-49A8-B324-5FBF34705293@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <70188F34-2E70-49A8-B324-5FBF34705293@tzi.org>
Reply-To: ljeanc@gmail.com
From: L Jean Camp <ljeanc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 13:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CACQRC40SfqWNrYy5_gtawwsji=9N+mMNGNL8i0z3xkeM1snZsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000152c7805c3f3c12c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pgXhwXkWTJEkZcuyIMiT3mMnQtI>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:45:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] please see draft-lear-opsawg-ol on licensing
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:09:35 -0000

Pardon the formatting, my responses are now in-line.


On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 7:44 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On 2021-06-04, at 13:21, L Jean Camp <ljeanc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given the explicit inclusion of licensing in the data structures of SBoM
> I think that SHOULD would be too strong in the case that MUD is extended to
> SBoMs. Both SPDX and CyCloneDX are integrating licensing in a more nuanced
> and consistent manner.
>
> The current discussion is about the license under which a MUD file is
> offered, not about the licenses governing the components of an SBOM.
>

This interaction between these two standards is a human factors disaster
waiting to happen.

There is a good case to be made that SBoM in the EO to be the driver for
MUD adoption.



>
> > SHOULD would create  a conflict with the extension unless there is an
> alternative in the SBoM extension data.
>
> Unless you envision an SBOM for the SBOM, I think we are clear.
>

 And it would not be an SBOM for the SBOM because the SBOM license is
already in the data standard.


>
> (But we sure can try to be consistent with license description schemes
> employed by SBOMs.  Please tell us more about those.)
>

The only example currently implemented is the medical example.  I expect
the requirements on these to be defined by a FDA statement. Again,
otherwise, there will be a license for the SBoM, the components, the
sub-components, etc that are expected to be standard software licenses.

Except special cases, of which the most developed SBoM pilot is one of
these, and the regulatory constraints I expect for be forthcoming.  I think
Kevin is focusing on those fairly intensely right now.


> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>