Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-cases-05
Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org> Thu, 01 August 2013 07:22 UTC
Return-Path: <inacio@cert.org>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6632C21F9D1E for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 00:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id osCvimv4t7Bl for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 00:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shetland.sei.cmu.edu (shetland.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5716421F9D65 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 00:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by shetland.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id r717MXdn016177; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:22:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1375341753; bh=NEptRMOlhgjL4ho8Pcu7NJtlbmsIXMboF82VleCQ248=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: Sender:Reply-To; b=RNryIerZ95vPR+PSuOkWLP3as/ga3LTtFOhTJB+G+vr5K7H/nFvXMmKZWYAqonT/b lLw6e/adF2vDJUuG39O28bdz7nT2zoFvxKeySQP0UEQMHmf8saeiirtzAE4cDSJI3B D/UuL8M/5ymIe3zlIKp2PtfBl5TDK5LxdlucHDFY=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id r717Mfqx024606; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:22:42 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:22:31 -0400
From: Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org>
To: Adam Montville <Adam.Montville@cisecurity.org>
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-cases-05
Thread-Index: AQHOjjqfNIe9Y1K/g0uKHDeCZjagz5l/jivwgAA+0eCAAGlhgA==
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:22:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4AE532C8B0B4B548AF47570D250D817414206BA4@marathon>
References: <4AE532C8B0B4B548AF47570D250D8174142067DC@marathon> <F1DFC16DCAA7D3468651A5A776D5796E1AAD005A@SN2PRD0510MB372.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <05BCCEB107AF88469B9F99783D47C1D673B2CF@CISEXCHANGE1.msisac.org.local>
In-Reply-To: <05BCCEB107AF88469B9F99783D47C1D673B2CF@CISEXCHANGE1.msisac.org.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.100.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <F6DF6A4EC94AA843A09696DFB8714409@sei.cmu.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sacm@ietf.org" <sacm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-cases-05
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion List for IETFers interested in the Security Content Automation Protocol \(SCAP\)." <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sacm>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:22:41 -0000
-- Chris Inacio inacio@cert.org On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Adam Montville <Adam.Montville@cisecurity.org> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sacm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Stephen Hanna >> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:38 PM >> To: Chris Inacio; sacm@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-cases-05 >> >> Chris, >> >> I hope you won't mind if I piggyback with a few comments of my own on this >> document and on your very good comments. >> >>> Endpoint / Asset : we should either discuss or acknowledge virtual >>> machines (read virtual assets?) and how they should be handled here. >> >> I agree. Virtual machines were intended to be included in the RFC 5209 >> definition of endpoint. However, that's not entirely clear from the text of >> that definition. It was explained obliquely later in RFC 5209. I suggest that we >> append the following sentence to the second paragraph in the endpoint >> definition in draft-waltermire-use-cases: >> >> Virtual devices (e.g. VM images) are also considered to be endpoints. > > Is this really needed? To me, a VM can have an IP address, and that's covered. I guess it doesn't matter either way, but if examples start becoming the spirit of the definition, then we're going to have a long list of things as technologies evolve. Toasters? I think it matters, mostly because of use cases that include asset tracking. There are a bunch of obvious other points where VM's need slightly special consideration – but it isn't clear to me from various statements in various documents that VM's are as top of mind as they might need to be.
- [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-case… Chris Inacio
- Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-… Stephen Hanna
- Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-… Adam Montville
- Re: [sacm] comments on draft-waltermire-sacm-use-… Chris Inacio