THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Technical Team/Minutes/2020-09-08
From SPDX Wiki
< Technical Team | Minutes
September 8, 2020
Attendees
- Thomas Steenbergen
- Nisha Kumar
- Gary O’Neall
- David Kemp
- William Bartholomew
- Jim Hutchison
- Steve Winslow
Topics:
- How do we best proceed on documenting the different profiles
- Core 3T SBOM comparison
Core 3T SBOM comparison
- Comparison of Core 3T model to Core SPDX model
- Slides available at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dvGeCAbOUSD5qFQ6mt1WsnBEZvatnonYpKGdAQCIWZg/edit#slide=id.g95424fd354_0_0 (NOTE: presentation starts a slide 8)
- Similar models
- Proposed changes to SPDX
- Identity – add structured email field, add structured tool information
- Relationship
- Subclass of element – adds ID
- add completeness enum
- Should completeness be put in a separate profile?
- General consensus on the call 95% of use cases will not use this so should be added as a profile
- Agreed to defer the decision until Kate is on the call – Kate has been working with NTIA on this
- David raised the point that completeness is an optional enumeration and may not complicate the model
- Desire to simplify by reducing the number of field definitions
- Make the object independent of the 2 items being related
- Package URL more fundamental – mandatory unique identifier
- Expanded the URL to be and ArtifactURL – superset of PackageURL which can include other types of artifacts including hardware etc.
- concern about representing non-public package distribution; PURL may not be mature enough for all use cases
- add to the PURL or ArtifactURL if it is missing
- Software heritage approach could be another alternative – less human readable
- Could we use the SPDX reference ID as a package URL
- Additional HASH algorithms
- Suggestion to create examples for various scenarios (e.g. here’s the source repository a binary artifact was built from)
- Suggest that we also have “bad examples”
- Nisha created a mock-up for a container as part of defining the linking profile
- Describing the relationships between layers, manifests can be complicated
- Difficulty in representing URL for container metadata
- Dynamic systems that re-generate the artifacts
- Proposal that the SBOM travel with the artifacts in the distributed systems
How to document different profiles
- ran out of time for this topic – moved to next week
Next Week
- Linkage profile update
- Nisha to present challenges with adapting to the container / container registry work
- How to document different profiles