IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 04 June 2021 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54A73A0D86; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 04:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GrxlSffokRgw; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 04:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CD23A0D77; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 04:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FxLWg4lz7z2xFs; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACQRC40oYOBTL7Yw9uFF1WwTv+u4AmJxfc-h8dhZkh5+TVyU-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 13:43:59 +0200
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 644499839.165211-44dbcbc0d3571aa9fd2330979721860d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <70188F34-2E70-49A8-B324-5FBF34705293@tzi.org>
References: <340b29f4-e867-6a5d-b45c-8c8b9e45eb47@lear.ch> <CACQRC40oYOBTL7Yw9uFF1WwTv+u4AmJxfc-h8dhZkh5+TVyU-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: ljeanc@gmail.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Lurd5yYSoYJBTtIbp_V7AjuKnog>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] please see draft-lear-opsawg-ol on licensing
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 11:44:06 -0000

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.

> 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.

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

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email