Hi Qin, Thanks for your review. Please see below.
On 08.10.22 11:27, Qin Wu wrote:
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.
Ok, I propose the following change: OLD: This memo specifies a model to provide access to this information. It may optionally be discovered through manufacturer usage descriptions. NEW: This memo extends the MUD YANG model to provide the locations of software bills of materials and to vulnerability information.
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
Ok
3.Section 1 said: “ In the first case, devices will have interfaces that permit directretrieval. 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 privateinterfaces 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
Ok. I changed the word "In" to "Using", but otherwise agree.
4.Section 1.1 [Qin] s/in either/either in
Ok
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.
I have changed this to "MUD's cache-validity node provides a way..." For your information, this is Section 3.5 of 8520.
N.B. is a commonly used Latin abbreviation for "nota bene" or "note well". It falls into the class of i.e, and e.g.6.Section 3 N.B.[Qin] What N.B. stands for? Can you provide a reference or change in other words.
This as discussed within the working group, and the point was made that it is good to show mud working with unrelated extensions. I would prefer for this reason *not* to include an informative reference. Implementations need not process extensions they do not understand (to do so would require a major rev of MUD).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,J 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?
I think you are right. The sentence order wasn't good. How about this: [...] Other servers that offer the data MAY restrict access to SBOM information using appropriate authorization semantics within HTTP. One way to do this would be to issue a certificate to the client for this purpose after a registration process has taken place. Another approach would involve the use of OAUTH in combination with a In particular, if a system attempts to retrieve an SBOM via HTTP and the client is not authorized, the server MUST produce an appropriate error, with instructions on how to register a particular client.
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?
Indeed we do. Please see https://github.com/sbomtools/apt2sbom. Eliot
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
