On 04/02/2013 06:07 PM, Shawn Wells wrote: > On 4/2/13 6:02 PM, Jeffrey Blank wrote: >> oh, okay, I see you are changing it to match the XCCDF. >> >> change the XCCDF ID instead. its ID is more precise. > > (responding to all the NACKs, since the reasoning is the same). > > I was making my way through the OVAL (in preparation to create > remediation scripts), and several OVAL checks don't match the XCCDF rule > name. In the past our stated goal was to have XCCDF == OVAL == > remediation in regards of naming. Do you feel that no longer makes sense?
I don't recall that conversation, nor am I convinced of the value of doing so in the short term unless we're planning to remove the OVAL checking reference from the XCCDF shorthand entirely and auto-generate it during the XCCDF-OVAL linking phase. (We'd still need a way to specify variable Value refinements in the shorthand, of course). _______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
