Subject: [sacm] WGLC for draft-ietf-sacm-rolie-softwaredescriptor

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:19:13 +0000

Folks,

This begins a two week working group last call for:
Definition of the ROLIE Software Descriptor Extension
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-rolie-softwaredescriptor/

Please review this document and send comments (including suitability to publish) to the mailing list.

This WGLC will close on 19 June 2019.

Thank you!
Karen and Chris

---

From: Jarrett Lu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 12:17:00 -0700

Hope I am reviewing the latest version. I found a couple nits.

On page 5, the 2nd item of the software-descriptor information type doesn’t end correctly. 
o  Version and patching information: Version numbers, patch
      identifiers, or other information that

Page 5, words in wrong order? E.g.,
> any information that in is the abstract realm
“that in is” -> “that is in”

Otherwise the document looks good enough to be published. 

- Jarrett

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 7:19 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-rolie-softwaredescriptor/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-rolie-softwaredescriptor/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

---

From: Chris Inacio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:42:06 +0000

Thanks for the review Jarrett.  Much appreciated.

On June 4, 2019 at 3:17:17 PM, Jarrett Lu ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:

- Jarrett

On Jun 4, 2019, at 7:19 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Folks,

Thank you!
Karen and Chris
_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

[email-masked]

---

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:29:12 +0000

Folks,

As discussed during our virtual interim on Tuesday, we are extending this working group last call in order to get a better response. Please reply to this email thread with an indication that you have read the document, any comments you may have, and your assessment of whether or not it is ready to proceed to publication.

DEADLINE: Please reply by Friday 5 July 2019.

Karen

On Jun 4, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Folks,

Thank you!
Karen and Chris

---

From: Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:18:01 -0400

I have reviewed the draft. It is ready for publication.

Thanks,
Jess

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:29 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> As discussed during our virtual interim on Tuesday, we are extending this
> working group last call in order to get a better response. Please reply to
> this email thread with an indication that you have read the document, any
> comments you may have, and your assessment of whether or not it is ready to
> proceed to publication.
>
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>

---

From: Bill Munyan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:47:44 -0400

Hello all,
I've read the draft and I have just a couple of nits/questions:

In sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.1, there is mention of the ISO SWID spec.  Should
those 2 mentions include the [SWID] reference link?  It may just be that
the first mention/reference includes the link (which happens previously in
the draft), so if it's not the norm to include the reference elsewhere,
that's fine.  Just my inexperience, so I thought I'd ask.

6.2.2: In the 1st bullet of the "A "COSWID Tag Entry" MUST conform to the
following requirements" section, the "type" attribute is required to be
"application/coswid+cbor".  The CoSWID draft creates the media type of
"application/swid+cbor" (Here
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-11#section-5.3>).
Should those be the same?

Last, are the "rolie:property" values for CoSWID Tag Entries the
"translated" values?  i.e. the decoded value at integer 0, 1, and 12?  I
think the answer is "yes", but wanted the clarification.

Cheers,
-Bill M.