IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: (with COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 24 April 2023 15:05 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 39EFAC152DB9; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 h71oCJjsjm5t; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (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 97323C152DBB; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p548dc9a4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q4pMk6lF8zDCdc; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:05:06 +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: <1d4e8263-ed0b-3bf9-9713-2bdee90aac40@lear.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:05:06 +0200
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 704041506.407317-4b4252bcfe82eba4e0b25dd9b08e4fcf
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9FAF855-DEE5-4B4E-9552-662201B48179@tzi.org>
References: <168234431499.14798.154467452140576038@ietfa.amsl.com> <1d4e8263-ed0b-3bf9-9713-2bdee90aac40@lear.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/nbNy3LhO13Gh0o4kE5gyzj7GGeA>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: (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: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:05:20 -0000

On 2023-04-24, at 17:00, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Reference `[RFC7231]` to `RFC7231`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9110` (this may
>> be on purpose).
> 
> Both are cited.  However, there was an inconsistency: one is cited as informational and one as normative.  In my opinion, they should both be normative because we are relying on the Content-type headers, and we mention Accept.

Please explain — do you really need the obsoleted content of RFC 7231 in addition to that of RFC 9110?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email