Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Petr Šabata
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:57:48PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello, > > How does this scheme compare with SWID? All common criteria protection > profiles > are calling out for SWID tags. Rather than having to pay for the ISO > standard, > NIST has a copy of nearly the same thing here: > >

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Petr Šabata
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:37:35PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:19:04PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 18:35 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > >> > >> > > >>

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Steve Grubb
Hello, How does this scheme compare with SWID? All common criteria protection profiles are calling out for SWID tags. Rather than having to pay for the ISO standard, NIST has a copy of nearly the same thing here: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/nistir-8060/nistir_8060_draft_fourth.pdf

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Petr Šabata
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:17:09PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: > > Good news, everyone, > > > > the first draft of the module metadata format is now available > > for you to comment on. We've decided to go with YAML so it > > should be

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:19:04PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 18:35 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: >> >> > >> the first draft of the module metadata format is now available >> > for you to

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-21 Thread Petr Šabata
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:19:04PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 18:35 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > the first draft of the module metadata format is now available > > for you to comment on.  We've decided to go with YAML so it > > should be fairly

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-15 Thread Colin Walters
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: > Good news, everyone, > > the first draft of the module metadata format is now available > for you to comment on. We've decided to go with YAML so it > should be fairly readable. You can view the latest version here: > >

Re: [Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-15 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 18:35 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > the first draft of the module metadata format is now available > for you to comment on.  We've decided to go with YAML so it > should be fairly readable.  You can view the latest version here: > >

[Modularity] Module metadata proposal

2016-04-14 Thread Petr Šabata
Good news, everyone, the first draft of the module metadata format is now available for you to comment on. We've decided to go with YAML so it should be fairly readable. You can view the latest version here: https://pagure.io/fm-metadata/blob/master/f/metadata.yaml What is is: The file