On 10/15/20, 11:43 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Eliot Lear"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2020, at 21:41, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> While the set of SBOM formats is far from set in stone, and I think that
> each will have a MIME type, I want to suggest that this document make it
> clear that HTTP content negotiation should be used to get the format
> one wants and/or that the type returned will be tagged via Content-Type.
Agree.
>
> Should the MUD file contain a text description of what content-type(s) are
> available? Avoiding for now, any kind if enumeration, aiming just for
> human consumption?
I guess I would want to explore the use case a bit.
Might be helpful. The format would be helpful too but would require a registry
(and a process to add formats). Plus there may end up being a lot of abandoned
formats.
Scott
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
