[PATCH 0/4] support for alternate titles

Jeffrey Blank blank at eclipse.ncsc.mil
Tue Sep 4 21:34:09 UTC 2012




> It is highly likely that any DISA FSO titleing will not be appropriate
> for all other venues.

Right.  And while it would be ideal and efficient for everyone to be
flexible and reach a consensus on language, if someone has special
needs, we can try to accomodate.

I strongly encourage discussion on this matter as we find our way forward.

> Thus, the <title> for a <Rule> (and likely <Group>s and <Profile>s,
> possible <Value>s) becomes a 1-n attribute of such, and each instance
> will need a domain-specific (e.g., DISA FSO) unique identifier that may
> apply to things other than titles (<Rule> ids, descriptions, warnings,
> rationales, etc).

Well, let's approach this very carefully, for a few different reasons.
The Rule id is the one thing that we are planning to use as an
(upstream) anchor.  Issuers of the content (that leverage it) could use
<note>s in their derivations to ensure a stable and maintainable mapping
if they need to alter this.  Creating alternate, additional
descriptions, warnings, and rationales could at some point turn into
hosting a complete fork of ourself, which would significantly increase
maintenance and support costs.

> I would like at some later time to discuss a syntax for benchmark
> fragments, an XML Schema or other suitable schema for such, inclusive of
> such issues like variant titles. This would foster more rigor of
> maintenance of individual fragments.

This makes sense.  Currently, I am abusing the namespace declarations by
declaring something in the XCCDF namespace that isn't, just to simplify
re-insertion/transformation into final output...


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list