A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Finding and Using Geofeed Data
Authors : Randy Bush
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Finding and Using Geofeed Data
Authors : Randy Bush
will push 16
randy
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 08:18:06PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> If we're going with "[#RPKI Signature] address range MUST match [inetnum:
> >>> followed to get here]", then there are probably a couple places that still
> >>> talk about "covered by" that should catch up.
> >>
> >> don't find any
>>> If we're going with "[#RPKI Signature] address range MUST match [inetnum:
>>> followed to get here]", then there are probably a couple places that still
>>> talk about "covered by" that should catch up.
>>
>> don't find any
>>
>> what i did find is that i forgot to remove
>>
>> The
See comments below. Please note, I'm not firmly in opposition of the idea.
Just contributing my viewpoint on it.
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:37 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 25.05.21 15:51, Patrick Dwyer wrote:
> > Hi Eliot,
> >
> > A well-known URI is just one way of enabling delivery of an SBOM.
>
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 03:12:21PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > If we're going with "[#RPKI Signature] address range MUST match [inetnum:
> > followed to get here]", then there are probably a couple places that still
> > talk about "covered by" that should catch up.
>
> don't find any
>
> what i
On 25.05.21 15:51, Patrick Dwyer wrote:
Hi Eliot,
A well-known URI is just one way of enabling delivery of an SBOM.
YYyyyes... but did you mean CSAF above?
Because of this, I think suppliers will need to include the CSAF
location in the SBOM itself.
That would tightly bind the CSAF to
Hi Eliot,
A well-known URI is just one way of enabling delivery of an SBOM.
Because of this, I think suppliers will need to include the CSAF location
in the SBOM itself.
I also think this is one of those things that crosses a logical boundary
that is no longer about discovering and accessing an
mornin' folk,
thanks, rob. to be honest, i did not track process.
> When you get a chance, please can you check whether -15 is sufficient
> to clear your discuss. I think that is the last step to progressing
> this doc.
shout if you need anything from my side.
randy
Hi,
For those of you who don’t know, Common Security Advisory Format (CSAF)
is an evolution on Common Vulnerability Reporting Framework. Such an
object could easily be delivered with an SBOM. It has a slightly
different characteristic in terms of update frequency. CSAF changes may
happen
Hi everyone,
There are a few small changes, one that need to be discussed:
* The current draft needs a slight bit of clarity on what protocols
can invoke .well-known. I had some text in there to include a
schema, but we got rid of it. I think we went too far. We still
want to
Hi Ben,
When you get a chance, please can you check whether -15 is sufficient to clear
your discuss. I think that is the last step to progressing this doc.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: iesg On Behalf
13 matches
Mail list logo
