* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Sacm Status Pages

Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (Active WG)
Sec Area: Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk | 2014-Jun-10 —  

IETF-105 sacm minutes

Session 2019-07-25 1740-1910: Van Horne - sacm chatroom


minutes-105-sacm-00 minutes

          NOTES: Dave W, Bill M
          JABBER: Stephen B.
          SACM WG @ IETF 105
          17:40 - 19:10, Thursday July 25th, Van Horn
          Intro / Agenda Bash - Chairs
          WGLC wrap-up on ROLIE Software Descriptor Extension (Banghart)
                  Updates have been made in accordance with comments -07
                  Extended last call comments into -08
                  One "major" change is just a typo (application/coswid+cbor -->
                  Will move the draft forward post-WGLC
          WGLC wrap-up on Concise Software Identifiers (COSWID) (Waltermire)
          CBOR-encoded SWID; the "younger brother" of SWID tags
          9 or so reviews during WGLC
          3 reviewers with detailed comments - addressed by -12 revision
          1 additional typo still in the -12
          Mostly clarification stuff - editorial issues
          1 normative change - UUID = 16-byte bstr
          New IANA registrations - "swid", "swidpath" and a registry for using
          CoSWID with SWIMA
          all open issues addressed, changes made based on all provided comments
          Ira on jabber - notes on RFC5198; to do with LF/CRLFs
          - Henk: its just "baggage from telnet"; dont really have to really worry
          about it right now
          - Ira: Agrees with keeping the 5198 reference
          - Kathleen would like to read it
          2-week "double check" post-WGLC
          WGLC wrap-up on Endpoint Posture Collection (ECP)
          Lots of reviews
          Jess incorporating changes eventually; plan for an update in September
          Henk sent in comments today
          No show stoppers - Henk might not make it past his 97 issues
          CARIS Workshop
          - Adoption and (lack of) adoption on protocols
          For those protocols/data formats -- The work done didnt match what
          was wanted
          Using IODEF as storage format, but not necessarily for exchange
          Are things on the right track towards adoption
          Adam: Members want tools to interoperate quickly and easily
          - Tripwire blog:  Cooperative ecosystem based on open and available tools,
          using standards
          Brett (Vendor Hat): The more complex the standard is, the less likely
          it will be implemented
          - Want simple, easy to integrate
          - Boil things down to bite-sized pieces that people can understand
          Adam: The standards-based stuff isnt the secret sauce, not the competitive
          advantage.  Would having open tools/libraries help
          Brett:  Would depend on the integrations and liability of the open source
          code and support level
          Standards are read/understood when the business requires it
          Henk: Look at the hackathons
          Dave: Vendors/NIST came initially to work on the next-gen of
          SCAP2.0 effort is an attempt to rebuild the community - meeting outside
          of the IETF, new authoring formats around XCCDF/OVAL
          Hum: Should the WG devote some time in a virtual interim for more
          discussion on this? Summary: Strong support for, no objections.
          SACM Hackathon Progress Report (Munyan)
          Bill reviewed slides to share this hackathon's results. Used a modified
          OVAL by decoupling collection from the typically monolithic OVAL document
          model. System characteristics were collected when requested to do so
          and results were provided to a MAP of CBOR data. XML could be translated
          back from the MAP to XML.
          Slide: Thanks
          Stephen Banghart: Thanks for all of your (and Carl's) work. It would be
          great if you could brief the SCAP endpoint collection group.
          Henk: This is getting at what caused us to get stuck. This shows a good
          proof of concept that shows the operations needed to get clarity moving
          forward. This is a good basis to create a data model. More interation
          will be needed to complete this, and we might not want to rely on the
          hackathon alone.
          Bill: Is there a more generic way to represent something like the OVAL
          data that doesn't constanly require modifications for adding new data.
          Henk: A general purpose CDDL-based parser is needed for this. This work
          is in the queue.
          SACM Architecture (Montville)
          (No updated draft - discuss next steps)
          Pending changes to the draft Adam/Bill working on now
          Draft clarifications
          Capability vs. Interface vs. Operation
          Sub-Architecture - Various collection systems; OVAL collection engine,
          EPCP implementations, YANG PUSH, etc
          Cooperative Tooling Architecture allows multiple approaches to work
          together (e.g., EPCP, OVAL)
          We will propose specific components and interactions for configuration
          management activities
          We will propose these things in the draft and move them out if/when
          - If something crosses the line to solutions, we'll make the decision
          to move it out
          Henk: I am interested in helping with the operations in September.
          Arnaud: 3 points. 1) The diagram is not very friendly to those color
          blind (especially the right side). 2) Is there a formal language for
          capabilities/interfaces/operations? 3) There is maybe a link between this
          work and other endpooint work in the ITU, can ITU create a statement of
          interest to send to the IETF?.
          ROMAN: Yes.
          Describe the messaging infrastructure that allows transportation of
          a payload.
          Describe the instructions components can give to each other to operate
          on that payload
          - "Tell": Do a collection
          - "Ask": Watch this set of information for changes
          WGLC Feb 2020
          ? - Information Model (Inacio)
          (No draft - discuss next steps)
          Chris posted a very rough -00 with only a handful of elements
          There's a composite type structure in there (Henk: Yes keep that)
          An "opaque" information field and a field of the opaque data type
          - If you can just have a blob of data, you dont have to standardize
          other elements
          - If the other party can understand the blob, then that's fine
          Actions: Some lists and enumerations - Will work with Bill/Adam to align
          with architecture
          Ira on Jabber: "Opaque" as a reference to the "x-name"(?)
          Dave Waltermire: This relates to the guidance in BCP178.
          Henk: This should be driven by running code. You should provide a
          Chris: I have "data use type".
          Chair: We can set the adoption milestone for this to September 2019.
          ? - Terminology (Birkholz/Montville)
          (No updated draft - discuss next steps)
          WG Status / Way Ahead - Chairs
          Roman: Milestone dates for those documents NOT in WGLC
          ROLIE SW Descriptor and CoSWID - Aug 2019 to IESG
          Architecture - Feb 2020 WGLC
          EPCP - October 2019 WGLC
          ROLIE Checklist Descriptor: WGLC March 2020
          YANG PUSH January 2020
          EPCP - Need to ask Jess about this one.
          Terminology - Architecture + 4 months (June 2020)
          Early Sept 9 or 16
          Early to Mid Oct 14

Generated from PyHt script /wg/sacm/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -