IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] are SWID and CoSWID isomorphic? (#27)

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Thu, 29 October 2020 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
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 B9C453A0AC7 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7WubA3SQMLEo for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED97F3A0AE3 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-143af84.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.120.42]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4FDFA520D57 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603983215; bh=jCgtgMBbRjKEnDvnpiC3BFcioWf+avu07Dg+wC9qh80=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LH+kuQxxFUaDe8AbxEvetr5UAtM75GO71y40oNHW8Ps914YAH1iwnQtvFY1JVdi3j LlLOLefsUQU7S6aAKeT0nCCX+eRq2Nl8+SmuMNv5ovNKP98DeMPFykU5c8YrAK1xav bkCUvcZzDrBEDbeUCAfP9jzH1SPJtVcHcfRxFgm0=
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:53:35 -0700
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <reply+ACTMJUPSPMRGRASLFRNVQAN5U24G7EVBNHHCVTIOG4@reply.github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <draft-ietf-sacm-coswid@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/27/718806536@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/27@github.com>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/27@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f9ad76f4c79d_4719b4175555"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: henkbirkholz
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: sacm@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/QJ6zq_fIoxAKaT-_rboFJArwW78>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] are SWID and CoSWID isomorphic? (#27)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Oct 2020 14:53:44 -0000

As the release of the iso spec and corresponding xsd is simply inconsistent, there is no simple way forward here.

We came to the decision that it is likely that implementers start from the XSD, than from the written definition in the spec table (it seems you did, too?).
The assessment included that it does hurt less to allow more than one of each mutual exclusive type of element, than restricting the quantity to one and thereby - potentially - making transformation from a XML SWID tag that uses the unbounded quantity harder.

Having said this. Do you still think it would be better to restrict the quantity here to 1?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/27#issuecomment-718806536

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email