IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Fri, 19 February 2021 15:48 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 A306A3A0FD7 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:48:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 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_16=1.092, 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 KEPeJJZ9uoOv for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632B43A0FD0 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-b3e07bb.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.112.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A5A65340E5E for <sacm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:48:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1613749680; bh=zZQ04Qm/c7DJofeiz/b/yKaT34ZYMVCMw84DkadyONA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hsFxDhJb/JXDWRO6B7/HdlOOKRFKHVglPuoVm2UM9bNlKH1Yd0WIBQqMVnqqezwsJ 80Ci5gQXpA7P2NiaV4tHcFNZzwPWJIAwgCjl6TLgqvrweZMNZv13PTaV0TShS7Mx7N Ie7mSpyh755iJQN1Fcv6rEM4ddwEF3OvXxPGx0bE=
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:48:00 -0800
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <reply+ACTMJULJFJKIUTXKPLFZRSF6HO7LBEVBNHHCV7W7PY@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/29/782159808@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_602fddb0a2dc5_581a54114199"; 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/luDzB36j21gj_f8mf8FWYgTRLN0>
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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:48:03 -0000

At the moment it seems that we are steering towards a targeted and concise 2nd WGLC. We'd start such a potential WGLC with a less strict spec definition that maps the "lax" concept in alignment with ISO. One outcome could be that the work here will trigger errata in ISO, but that result is neither implied nor guaranteed. If there are changes to ISO in the future, we can adhere to them and adapt the CoSWID specification. Does that sound feasible?

-- 
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-782159808

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email