Hi, authors:
I have read the latest version of this draft, it is well written, thank for
that.
Here is the identified minor issues during document shepherd review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-11:
1. Abstract said:
"
It may optionally be discovered through manufacturer usage descriptions.
"
[Qin] This sentence is not clear. Are you saying MUD extensions transparency
can be discovered using extensions defined in section 3.9 of RFC8520?
Or software transparency and vulnerability information can be discovered by
using ACL example defined in section 5.4 of this draft? I assume it is the
latter. Please clarify.
2. Section 1 said:
"
The mechanisms specified in this document are meant to satisfy
several use cases:
* A network-layer management system retrieving information from an
IoT device as part of its ongoing lifecycle. Such devices may or
may not have query interfaces available.
"
[Qin] How many use cases do we specify here? I believe it is two, how about be
specific about the number of use cases here, s/several use cases/the following
two use cases
3. Section 1 said:
" In the first case, devices will have interfaces that permit direct
retrieval. Examples of these interfaces might be an HTTP
[RFC9110<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110>],
or COAP [RFC7252<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7252>] endpoint
for retrieval. There may also be private
interfaces as well.
In the second case, when a device does not have an appropriate
retrieval interface, but one is directly available from the
manufacturer, a URI to that information MUST be discovered.
In the third case, a supplier may wish to make an SBOM or
vulnerability information available under certain circumstances, and
may need to individually evaluate requests. The result of that
evaluation might be the SBOM or vulnerability itself or a restricted
"
[Qin] I believe the first case, the second case, the third case are
corresponding to three ways to discover object instead of two key use cases
listed in section 1? Therefore there are confusing to be introduced here.
I suggest to change as follows:
s/in one of three ways/ through one of three method
s/In the first case/In the first method
s/In the second case/In the second method
s/in the third case/In the third method
4. Section 1.1
[Qin] s/in either/either in
5. Section 1.1 said:
" The MUD semantics provide a way for manufacturers
to control how often tooling should check for those changes through
the cache-validity node. "
[Qin] Can you provide a reference section in RFC8520 about such MUD semantics.
6. Section 3 N.B.
[Qin] What N.B. stands for? Can you provide a reference or change in other
words.
7. Section 5.4 said:
"
5.4<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-11#section-5.4>.
With ACLS
Finally, here is a complete example where the device provides SBOM
and vulnerability information, as well as access-control information.
{
"ietf-mud:mud": {
"mud-version": 1,
"extensions": [
"ol",
"transparency"
], "
[Qin] How this draft is related to draft-ietf-opsawg-ol-01? In other words, how
sbom access work together with Ownership and licensing statements in YANG
described in draft-ietf-opsawg-ol-01.
If 'ol' extension is needed, I think a informative reference is needed here.
8. Section 6 said:
"N.B., for MUD, the mandatory method of retrieval is TLS. "
[Qin] New fashion of acronym,:)
9. Section 6 said:
"
One example may be to issue a certificate to the client for
this purpose after a registration process has taken place. Another
example would involve the use of OAUTH in combination with a
federations of SBOM servers. "
[Qin] I feel there is disconnection between the fifth sentence and the sixth
sentence in the paragraph 9 . Two examples are provided here, I am wondering
which security risk are addressed by which example?
10. Section 6 said:
"
Vulnerability information is generally made available to such
databases as NIST's National Vulnerability Database. "
[Qin] Do we need to list the Database Name developed by specific entity in the
security section as normative text?
11. Do we have implementation that pertains to this draft?
-Qin
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
