Do not require a protocol/@name for #1772#2069
Conversation
|
As an improvement this almost speaks for itself -- while links are also helpful (thanks @aj-stein-gsa). My concern is only a process concern, namely whether PRs should be targeting |
iMichaela
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is reasonable and agree to move forward with removing the constraint for the protocol name, but I disagree with pushing it to main. The develop branch has a lot of important updates to dependencies and some other backwards compatible fixes that are staged for a patch release. I suggest submitting it against the develop branch unless anyone has a major complaint against any staged update.
Per discussion with community members and the nature of port, protocol, and service declarations in a OSCAL SSP model instances for RMF use cases, like FedRAMP and others. It would appear the model, per the Metaschema declarations and documentation, require a port range has a name that is commonly the IANA service name, which should be optional. Otherwise, developers and security officials will need to create an arbitrary name that does not strictly conform to the documentation. More details can be found in the issue thread referenced below by URL. usnistgov#1772 (comment)
0178480 to
f033c60
Compare
|
@iMichaela, against the documented guidance and my recommendations, per your request I rebased and this PR now targets develop. I would welcome the following.
|
Committer Notes
Per discussion with community members and the nature of port, protocol, and service declarations in a OSCAL SSP model instances for RMF use cases, like FedRAMP and others. It would appear the model, per the Metaschema declarations and documentation, require a port range has a name that is commonly the IANA service name, which should be optional. Otherwise, developers and security officials will need to create an arbitrary name that does not strictly conform to the documentation. More details can be found in the issue thread referenced below by URL.
#1772 (comment)
This PR may not completely bring #1772 to resolution, but it may be sufficient to close the issue with one possible approach.
All Submissions:
By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.
(For reviewers: The wiki has guidance on code review and overall issue review for completeness.)
Changes to Core Features:
Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?This repo does not contain model-based/instance-based testing; we will update the GSA FedRAMP Automation Team's test suite accordingly for public review and ongoing use.Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)?Not in this repository, but will work with GSA FedRAMP Automation Team to update our constraints and examples accordingly.