IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: (with COMMENT)

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Mon, 24 April 2023 16:29 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 1FDD3C13AE2B; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.888 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 HW6kcXuRl6Bn; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:29:40 -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 8B41EC14CE2F; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1682353765; bh=yRLsERq9jlsTfZqcdkxQPMban/KdXKu4G58+eoRoZw8=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=i/ENeyg1gWoK5UtwODnykM/ciw6U0sPQv8L2I2xNcUa0TB4G8kMI3Zuukl23e6NDK 9wqNAmwWTg0MJjh4ydHVK+Iyuq5q+MeLs8q7uh0p98eV79puS2MvaD4dP8+SlfE9HV vicsHgVfc1QL1PpgMiDMUkHp25kSTbmm4cuvnHMo=
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::1] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:1]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 33OGTNwi168563 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:29:24 +0200
Message-ID: <91d0808d-6f26-0bf4-a679-82a6f61080c6@lear.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:29:22 +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: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <168232642126.49973.3794267032564521950@ietfa.amsl.com> <a1386335-ce58-31ec-53a0-d82e52e22b48@lear.ch> <CEA17792-C2A3-4878-8251-DE8F7DE7BA3D@cisco.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CEA17792-C2A3-4878-8251-DE8F7DE7BA3D@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vexwpwKQSPiEL4jjYLUxKzE3z8M>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Yes 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 16:29:44 -0000

Hi Eric,

On 24.04.23 12:31, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Could you be more specific?
>
> EV> sure, the paragraph below as a "MUST" while the one before and the one after do not. And, they are all describing 3 methods considered by this I-D. I find it unbalanced, not critical of course.
>
> "Using the second method, when a device does not have an appropriate retrieval interface, but one is directly available from the manufacturer, a URI to that information MUST be discovered."
>
Your right.  I think that MUST is ill placed at this point (probably due 
to revs).  I propose to remove that MUS.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email