Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-16: (with COMMENT)

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Thu, 27 April 2023 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
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 CF87DC151B37; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LSc2gee-TRU; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [IPv6:2a00:bd80:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 819B5C15155B; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1682602161; bh=e5Ne0kt7rrSjve+fUwHJcYrqE3i5vkhU+Z87gt4jFdg=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=t2XzxoXJHTUQ1RK0yUg7YuQC6d18vKCb6rXoI6xf2kiPLo+aupQpMD6wKJwYFre+k 81xtEuOV/oLXg8a1yuM8cJIbbsaUYHoOpEtMlFQs5TQFBoJRnWY0sSlLj8qMqB1Tky 1epgMk2aX4wlOg4ZlipTj7V+0cDSUfjVCo84i5VI=
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::4] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:4]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 33RDTKJv292481 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:29:21 +0200
Message-ID: <a4c46ce1-7d03-1ebd-c8b9-dee5f2d70224@lear.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:29:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
References: <168259774342.29456.108796933585455062@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <168259774342.29456.108796933585455062@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Us5euu0JdA6Ppy-dyX3GfyKsVzs>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:29:34 -0000

Righto.  Thanks for catching that Roman.  I will work with the AD to 
make sure that gets corrected prior to publication.

Eliot

On 27.04.23 14:15, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-16: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Christian Huitema for the SECDIR review.
>
> Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and most of my COMMENT feedback.
>
> ** Section 5.1
>
> ==[ snip ]==
> The second example demonstrates that just SBOM information is included.
>
> {
>    "ietf-mud:mud": {
>      "mud-version": 1,
>      "extensions": [
>        "transparency"
>      ],
>      "mudtx:transparency": {
>        "sbom-local-well-known": "https"
>      },
>      "mud-url": "https://iot.example.com/modelX.json",
>      "mud-signature": "https://iot.example.com/modelX.p7s",
>      "last-update": "2022-01-05T13:29:47+00:00",
>      "cache-validity": 48,
>      "is-supported": true,
>      "systeminfo": "retrieving SBOM info via a cloud service",
>      "mfg-name": "Example, Inc.",
>      "documentation": "https://iot.example.com/doc/modelX",
>      "model-name": "modelX"
>    }
> }
> ==[ snip ]==
>
> In -15 systeminfo said "retrieving vuln and SBOM info via a cloud service".  In
> response to my ballot, -16 now reads "retrieving SBOM info via a cloud
> service".  However, since the sbom-local-well-known field is present and the
> narrative text says "The second example demonstrates that just SBOM information
> is included", systeminfo should read "retrieving SBOM information locally from
> the device" (or something to that effect).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>