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

[L Jean Camp <[e-mail]>]

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.

SHOULD would create  a conflict with the extension unless there is an
alternative in the SBoM extension data.


On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 6:04 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [CC netmod]
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Based on Carsten's concerns about licensing of MUD files we wrote a very
> short extension to RFC 8520 to allow statements to be added.  I note it
> misses an Updates: header, but we should probably add that so people
> know they SHOULD use this extension.
>
> The extension is written as a grouping that is then 'used' to augment a
> 'mud' container.  The intent here is that if you find the need to use
> the extension for other purposes, you can.  I wonder if some yang
> doctors would like to take a look. We'd like to move on this one quickly.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>