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

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 14:29 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 A36643A0B0E for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:29:22 -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 aYrTx8QvJyHd for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.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 6836C3A0B0B for <sacm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-376374a.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.109.41]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ADFE0340D41 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603808960; bh=MGz/tkxPBuFEX8jLqlJzmOwVaXYRQdBucuQXVSpV6Cc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=a3qSoDgkTUrnDJbuuTO0csdrkT5K4llH9nWPteyBfeom3JEqOLdVvKysBZiSeyKkC GNSkShRiBMxPrzqLgoSsmucV7iccBEcnix9wl0x2yFsnaqfmK+Nqz2MCrJDXxoQytG 9uIBVj6UTm29E+l0iy0e+IO+iOjV1JF9+IWFUJcg=
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:29:20 -0700
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <reply+ACTMJUK573FNRH7BVDZHN2N5UQH4BEVBNHHCVTIOG4@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/27/717283356@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_5f982ec0aa4f1_4519b425618"; 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/mpQ_zPdoJn5U2JN-PhQbarvcxIc>
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:29:23 -0000

The authors are currently meeting on a regular basis and are generating a shared agreement on all inputs, including yours. Each issue leads to discussions of various sizes, currently :-) One of the big topics discussed is the relationship between SWID and CoSWID. As soon as all authors agreed on a way to address a topic, e.g. SWID & CoSWID alignment, we will pull new content into the I-D and reply to the corresponding issue.

According to NIST SP 8060, file hashes are stored in XML any-attributes associated with file types. Currently, CoSWID provides more explicit structures and therefore is intentionally more specific (not allowing SHA1 or MD5, for example & or disallowing the mixture of Evidence and Payload). 

-- 
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-717283356