Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] can't use CDDL to validate seemingly valid CBOR (#29)

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 18:10 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 5A1A83A1513 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:10:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.051
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.57, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 RVwUmG4dvOpi for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CB313A1160 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-19715e2.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.17.25]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AF6916003F4 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:10:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1613671813; bh=0V+eTKT2yin8DTrOnIxVFgD5SktIY8E3tXi8O0Ikkp0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QpR1upMP1dqSQVyGhXLjQkZ4tgnhlJMBklbBO252s8iepopvEoebICXqJa9Ef4huW vTuKZRb9bZTh0+r16Y1MkBu+hPmF/F0BUYwU1cyYK57mQSzlZ8SoYXT8MEH0vHId95 gFNoEHdjQ5Fl7Upw5Xrzas0kJblc2EmrgYAROoB0=
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:10:13 -0800
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <reply+ACTMJUIWCRKKIYFDT656WXF6HKHILEVBNHHCV7W7PY@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/29/781536186@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/29@github.com>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/29@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_602ead85acf40_5f1a54236215"; 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/c3nK7cjH1iYekEdGhbB4--1gXdU>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] can't use CDDL to validate seemingly valid CBOR (#29)
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, 18 Feb 2021 18:10:17 -0000

Well, while I absolutely agree with the concept you illustrated, the ISO provided XSD representing a security specification that allows for that behavior. Quoting from https://standards.iso.org/iso/19770/-2/2015-current/schema.xsd:

```
<xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
Allows any undeclared attributes on any element as long as the attribute is placed in a different namespace.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
</xs:anyAttribute>
```

While ##other is required, in the end processContent is lax. That is exactly what we are mapping here in CoSWID.

We can diverge from that and be more strict. I am fine with the idea, but we have to come to consensus.

-- 
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/29#issuecomment-781536186