[sacm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-20: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 08 February 2022 13:33 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072D03A0C35; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 05:33:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sacm-coswid@ietf.org, sacm-chairs@ietf.org, sacm@ietf.org, Christopher Inacio <inacio@cert.org>, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>, inacio@cert.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.44.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <164432722999.15468.849628164390973358@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 05:33:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/gMkvpFTg-XAVc-Ue6jZ3Eqk4HQ8>
Subject: [sacm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-20: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 13:33:50 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-20: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is deep in CBOR & CDDL so my review is quite superficial as I do not have the expertise on these domains. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Christopher Inacio for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus, but I would have preferred to see a justification for the intended status. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS There appear to be little traffic on the CBOR mailing list about CoSWID but Carsten Borman is in the acknowledgment section and I am trusting the ART AD for the CBOR review. The id-nits tool detects a couple of issues (e.g., RFC 8126 and BCP 26 are duplicates). ## Section 1 "While SWID and CoSWID are intended to share the same implicit information model, this specification does not define this information model, or a mapping between the the two data formats. While an attempt to align SWID and CoSWID tags has been made here, future revisions of ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 or this specification might cause this implicit information model to diverge, since these specifications are maintained by different standards groups." After reading the above, I was wonder whether there is still value to define such a 'moving target' specification. Suggestion: introduce the extension mechanism early in section 1. ## Section 2 Is there any reason why some CamelCase names (e.g., "version") are not identical in the KebabCase names (e.g., "software-version") ? This break automatic mapping for a minor improvement; hence, a short explanation would be welcome. # NITS ## Section 1 "...between the the two data formats...." ;-) ## Other nits "e.g." and "for example" should be followed by a "," s/16 byte binary string /16-byte binary string / and similar
- [sacm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-s… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [sacm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Henk Birkholz