Concise Software Identification Tags
draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-21
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (sacm WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Henk Birkholz , Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay , Charles Schmidt , David Waltermire | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-21 (Latest revision 2022-03-07) | ||
| Replaces | draft-birkholz-sacm-coswid | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-18)
Has Issues
OPSDIR Last Call review
(of
-18)
Has Nits
ARTART Last Call review
(of
-18)
Ready with Nits
IOTDIR Telechat Review
Incomplete, due 2022-05-31
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Associated WG milestones |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Christopher Inacio | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-07-26 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | ||
| Send notices to | Christopher Inacio <inacio@cert.org>, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK |
draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-21
SACM Working Group H. Birkholz
Internet-Draft Fraunhofer SIT
Intended status: Standards Track J. Fitzgerald-McKay
Expires: 8 September 2022 National Security Agency
C. Schmidt
The MITRE Corporation
D. Waltermire
NIST
7 March 2022
Concise Software Identification Tags
draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-21
Abstract
ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 Software Identification (SWID) tags provide an
extensible XML-based structure to identify and describe individual
software components, patches, and installation bundles. SWID tag
representations can be too large for devices with network and storage
constraints. This document defines a concise representation of SWID
tags: Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags. CoSWID supports a similar set of
semantics and features as SWID tags, as well as new semantics that
allow CoSWIDs to describe additional types of information, all in a
more memory efficient format.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. The SWID and CoSWID Tag Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Concise SWID Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Concise SWID Data Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Concise SWID Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. The concise-swid-tag Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. concise-swid-tag Co-Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5. The global-attributes Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6. The entity-entry Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7. The link-entry Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. The software-meta-entry Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9. The Resource Collection Definition . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.9.1. The hash-entry Array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.9.2. The resource-collection Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.9.3. The payload-entry Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.9.4. The evidence-entry Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.10. Full CDDL Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3. Determining the Type of CoSWID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4. CoSWID Indexed Label Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1. Version Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2. Entity Role Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3. Link Ownership Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4. Link Rel Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.5. Link Use Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5. URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1. "swid" URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2. "swidpath" URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1. CoSWID Items Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.2. Software Tag Values Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.2.1. Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.2.2. Private Use of Index and Name Values . . . . . . . . 52
6.2.3. Expert Review Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.2.4. Software Tag Version Scheme Values Registry . . . . . 53
6.2.5. Software Tag Entity Role Values Registry . . . . . . 55
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6.2.6. Software Tag Link Ownership Values Registry . . . . . 56
6.2.7. Software Tag Link Relationship Values Registry . . . 57
6.2.8. Software Tag Link Use Values Registry . . . . . . . . 60
6.3. swid+cbor Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.4. CoAP Content-Format Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5. CBOR Tag Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.6. URI Scheme Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.6.1. URI-scheme swid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.6.2. URI-scheme swidpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.7. CoSWID Model for use in SWIMA Registration . . . . . . . 64
7. Signed CoSWID Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8. CBOR-Tagged CoSWID Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10. Privacy Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1. Introduction
SWID tags, as defined in ISO-19770-2:2015 [SWID], provide a
standardized XML-based record format that identifies and describes a
specific release of software, a patch, or an installation bundle,
which are referred to as software components in this document.
Different software components, and even different releases of a
particular software component, each have a different SWID tag record
associated with them. SWID tags are meant to be flexible and able to
express a broad set of metadata about a software component.
SWID tags are used to support a number of processes including but not
limited to:
* Software Inventory Management, a part of a Software Asset
Management [SAM] process, which requires an accurate list of
discernible deployed software components.
* Vulnerability Assessment, which requires a semantic link between
standardized vulnerability descriptions and software components
installed on IT-assets [X.1520].
* Remote Attestation, which requires a link between reference
integrity measurements (RIM) and Attester-produced event logs that
complement attestation Evidence [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture].
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
While there are very few required fields in SWID tags, there are many
optional fields that support different uses. A SWID tag consisting
of only required fields might be a few hundred bytes in size;
however, a tag containing many of the optional fields can be many
orders of magnitude larger. Thus, real-world instances of SWID tags
can be fairly large, and the communication of SWID tags in usage
scenarios, such as those described earlier, can cause a large amount
of data to be transported. This can be larger than acceptable for
constrained devices and networks. Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags
significantly reduce the amount of data transported as compared to a
typical SWID tag through the use of the Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949].
Size comparisons between XML SWID and CoSWID mainly depend on domain-
specific applications and the complexity of attributes used in
instances. While the values stored in CoSWID are often unchanged and
therefore not reduced in size compared to an XML SWID, the
scaffolding that the CoSWID encoding represents is significantly
smaller by taking up 10 percent or less in size. This effect is
visible in representation sizes, which in early experiments benefited
from a 50 percent to 85 percent reduction in generic usage scenarios.
Additional size reduction is enabled with respect to the memory
footprint of XML parsing/validation.
In a CoSWID, the human-readable labels of SWID data items are
replaced with more concise integer labels (indices). This approach
allows SWID and CoSWID to share a common implicit information model,
with CoSWID providing an alternate data model [RFC3444]. While SWID
and CoSWID are intended to share the same implicit information model,
this specification does not define this information model, or a
mapping between the two data formats. While an attempt to align SWID
and CoSWID tags has been made here, future revisions of ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 or this specification might cause this implicit
information model to diverge, since these specifications are
maintained by different standards groups.
The use of CBOR to express SWID information in CoSWID tags allows
both CoSWID and SWID tags to be part of an enterprise security
solution for a wider range of endpoints and environments.
1.1. The SWID and CoSWID Tag Lifecycle
In addition to defining the format of a SWID tag record, ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 defines requirements concerning the SWID tag lifecycle.
Specifically, when a software component is installed on an endpoint,
that software component's SWID tag is also installed. Likewise, when
the software component is uninstalled or replaced, the SWID tag is
deleted or replaced, as appropriate. As a result, ISO/IEC
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
19770-2:2015 describes a system wherein there is a correspondence
between the set of installed software components on an endpoint, and
the presence of the corresponding SWID tags for these components on
that endpoint. CoSWIDs share the same lifecycle requirements as a
SWID tag.
The SWID specification and supporting guidance provided in NIST
Internal Report (NISTIR) 8060: Guidelines for the Creation of
Interoperable SWID Tags [SWID-GUIDANCE] defines four types of SWID
tags: primary, patch, corpus, and supplemental. The following text
is paraphrased from these sources.
1. Primary Tag - A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes
an installed software component on an endpoint. A primary tag is
intended to be installed on an endpoint along with the
corresponding software component.
2. Patch Tag - A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes an
installed patch that has made incremental changes to a software
component installed on an endpoint. A patch tag is intended to
be installed on an endpoint along with the corresponding software
component patch.
3. Corpus Tag - A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes
an installable software component in its pre-installation state.
A corpus tag can be used to represent metadata about an
installation package or installer for a software component, a
software update, or a patch.
4. Supplemental Tag - A SWID or CoSWID tag that allows additional
information to be associated with a referenced SWID tag. This
allows tools and users to record their own metadata about a
software component without modifying CoSWID primary or patch tags
created by a software provider.
The type of a tag is determined by specific data elements, which are
discussed in Section 3, which also provides normative language for
CoSWID semantics that implement this lifecycle. The following
information helps to explain how these semantics apply to use of a
CoSWID tag.
Corpus, primary, and patch tags have similar functions in that
they describe the existence and/or presence of different types of
software components (e.g., software installers, software
installations, software patches), and, potentially, different
states of these software components. Supplemental tags have the
same structure as other tags, but are used to provide information
not contained in the referenced corpus, primary, and patch tags.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
All four tag types come into play at various points in the
software lifecycle and support software management processes that
depend on the ability to accurately determine where each software
component is in its lifecycle.
+------------+
v |
Software Software Software Software Software
Deployment -> Installation -> Patching -> Upgrading -> Removal
Corpus Primary Primary xPrimary xPrimary
Supplemental Supplemental Supplemental xSupplemental xSupplemental
Patch xPatch
Primary
Supplemental
Figure 1: Use of Tag Types in the Software Lifecycle
Figure 1 illustrates the steps in the software lifecycle and the
relationships among those lifecycle events supported by the four
types of SWID and CoSWID tags. A detailed description of the four
tags types is provided in Section 2.3. The figure identifies the
types of tags that are used in each lifecycle event.
There are many ways in which software tags might be managed for the
host the software is installed on. For example, software tags could
be made available on the host or to an external software manager when
storage is limited on the host.
In these cases the host or external software manager is responsible
for management of the tags, including deployment and removal of the
tags as indicated by the above lifecycle. Tags are deployed and
previously deployed tags that are typically removed (indicated by an
"x" prefix) at each lifecycle stage, as follows:
- Software Deployment. Before the software component is
installed (i.e., pre-installation), and while the product is
being deployed, a corpus tag provides information about the
installation files and distribution media (e.g., CD/DVD,
distribution package).
Corpus tags are not actually deployed on the target system but are
intended to support deployment procedures and their dependencies at
install-time, such as to verify the installation media.
- Software Installation. A primary tag will be installed with
the software component (or subsequently created) to uniquely
identify and describe the software component. Supplemental
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
tags are created to augment primary tags with additional site-
specific or extended information. While not illustrated in the
figure, patch tags can also be installed during software
installation to provide information about software fixes
deployed along with the base software installation.
- Software Patching. A new patch tag is provided, when a patch
is applied to the software component, supplying details about
the patch and its dependencies. While not illustrated in the
figure, a corpus tag can also provide information about the
patch installer and patching dependencies that need to be
installed before the patch.
- Software Upgrading. As a software component is upgraded to a
new version, new primary and supplemental tags replace existing
tags, enabling timely and accurate tracking of updates to
software inventory. While not illustrated in the figure, a
corpus tag can also provide information about the upgrade
installer and dependencies that need to be installed before the
upgrade.
Note: In the context of software tagging software patching and
updating differ in an important way. When installing a patch, a set
of file modifications are made to pre-installed software which do not
alter the version number or the descriptive metadata of an installed
software component. An update can also make a set of file
modifications, but the version number or the descriptive metadata of
an installed software component are changed.
- Software Removal. Upon removal of the software component,
relevant SWID tags are removed. This removal event can trigger
timely updates to software inventory reflecting the removal of
the product and any associated patch or supplemental tags.
As illustrated in the figure, supplemental tags can be associated
with any corpus, primary, or patch tag to provide additional metadata
about an installer, installed software, or installed patch
respectively.
Understanding the use of CoSWIDs in the software lifecycle provides a
basis for understanding the information provided in a CoSWID and the
associated semantics of this information. Each of the different SWID
and CoSWID tag types provide different sets of information. For
example, a "corpus tag" is used to describe a software component's
installation image on an installation media, while a "patch tag" is
meant to describe a patch that modifies some other software
component.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
1.2. Concise SWID Format
This document defines the CoSWID tag format, which is based on CBOR.
CBOR-based CoSWID tags offer a more concise representation of SWID
information as compared to the XML-based SWID tag representation in
ISO-19770-2:2015. The structure of a CoSWID is described via the
Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]. The resulting
CoSWID data definition is aligned to the information able to be
expressed with the XML schema definition of ISO-19770-2:2015 [SWID].
This alignment allows both SWID and CoSWID tags to represent a common
set of software component information and allows CoSWID tags to
support the same uses as a SWID tag.
The vocabulary, i.e., the CDDL names of the types and members used in
the CoSWID CDDL specification, are mapped to more concise labels
represented as small integer values (indices). The names used in the
CDDL specification and the mapping to the CBOR representation using
integer indices is based on the vocabulary of the XML attribute and
element names defined in ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015.
1.3. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Concise SWID Data Definition
The following describes the general rules and processes for encoding
data using CDDL representation. Prior familiarity with CBOR and CDDL
concepts will be helpful in understanding this CoSWID specification.
This section describes the conventions by which a CoSWID is
represented in the CDDL structure. The CamelCase [CamelCase]
notation used in the XML schema definition is changed to a hyphen-
separated notation [KebabCase] (e.g., ResourceCollection is named
resource-collection) in the CoSWID CDDL specification. This
deviation from the original notation used in the XML representation
reduces ambiguity when referencing certain attributes in
corresponding textual descriptions. An attribute referred to by its
name in CamelCase notation explicitly relates to XML SWID tags; an
attribute referred to by its name in KebabCase notation explicitly
relates to CBOR CoSWID tags. This approach simplifies the
composition of further work that reference both XML SWID and CBOR
CoSWID documents.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
In most cases, mapping attribute names between SWID and CoSWID can be
done automatically by converting between CamelCase and KebabCase
attribute names. However, some CoSWID CDDL attribute names show
greater variation relative to their corresponding SWID XML Schema
attributes. This is done when the change improves clarity in the
CoSWID specification. For example, the "name" and "version" SWID
fields corresponds to the "software-name" and "software-version"
CoSWID fields, respectively. As such, it is not always possible to
mechanically translate between corresponding attribute names in the
two formats. In such cases, a manual mapping will need to be used.
XPath expressions [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] need to use SWID names,
see Section 5.2.
The 57 human-readable text labels of the CDDL-based CoSWID vocabulary
are mapped to integer indices via a block of rules at the bottom of
the definition. This allows a more concise integer-based form to be
stored or transported, as compared to the less efficient text-based
form of the original vocabulary.
Through use of CDDL-based integer labels, CoSWID allows for future
expansion in subsequent revisions of this specification and through
extensions (see Section 2.2). New constructs can be associated with
a new integer index. A deprecated construct can be replaced by a new
construct with a new integer index. An implementation can use these
integer indexes to identify the construct to parse. The CoSWID Items
registry, defined in Section 6.1, is used to ensure that new
constructs are assigned a unique index value. This approach avoids
the need to have an explicit CoSWID version.
In a number of places, the value encoding admits both integer values
and text strings. The integer values are defined in a registry
specific to the kind of value; the text values are not intended for
interchange and exclusively meant for private use as defined in
Section 6.2.2. Encoders SHOULD NOT use string values based on the
names registered in the registry, as these values are less concise
than their index value equivalent; a decoder MUST however be prepared
to accept text strings that are not specified in this document (and
ignore the construct if that string is unknown). In the rest of the
document, we call this an "integer label with text escape".
The root of the CDDL specification provided by this document is the
rule coswid (as defined in Section 8):
start = coswid
In CBOR, an array is encoded using bytes that identify the array, and
the array's length or stop point (see [RFC8949]). To make items that
support 1 or more values, the following CDDL notation is used.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
_name_ = (_label_ => _data_ / [ 2* _data_ ])
The CDDL rule above allows either a single data item or an array of 2
or more data values to be provided. When a singleton data value is
provided, the CBOR markers for the array, array length, and stop
point are not needed, saving bytes. When two or more data values are
provided, these values are encoded as an array. This modeling
pattern is used frequently in the CoSWID CDDL specification to allow
for more efficient encoding of singleton values.
Usage of this construct can be simplified using
one-or-more<T> = T / [ 2* T ]
simplifying the above example to
_name_ = (_label_ => one-or-more<_data_>)
The following subsections describe the different parts of the CoSWID
model.
2.1. Character Encoding
The CDDL "text" type is represented in CBOR as a major type 3, which
represents "a string of Unicode characters that [are] encoded as
UTF-8 [RFC3629]" (see Section 3.1 of [RFC8949]). Thus both SWID and
CoSWID use UTF-8 for the encoding of characters in text strings.
To ensure that UTF-8 character strings are able to be encoded/decoded
and exchanged interoperably, text strings in CoSWID MUST be encoded
consistent with the Net-Unicode definition defined in [RFC5198].
All names registered with IANA according to requirements in
Section 6.2 also MUST be valid according to the XML Schema NMTOKEN
data type (see [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] Section 3.3.4) to
ensure compatibility with the SWID specification where these names
are used.
2.2. Concise SWID Extensions
The CoSWID specification contains two features that are not included
in the SWID specification on which it is based. These features are:
* The explicit definition of types for some attributes in the ISO-
19770-2:2015 XML representation that are typically represented by
the "any attribute" in the SWID model. These are covered in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* The inclusion of extension points in the CoSWID specification
using CDDL sockets (see [RFC8610] Section 3.9). The use of CDDL
sockets allow for well-formed extensions to be defined in
supplementary CDDL descriptions that support additional uses of
CoSWID tags that go beyond the original scope of ISO-19770-2:2015
tags. This extension mechanism can also be used to update the
CoSWID format as revisions to ISO-19770-2 are published.
The following CDDL sockets (extension points) are defined in this
document, which allow the addition of new information structures to
their respective CDDL groups.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=====================+=================================+=========+
| Map Name | CDDL Socket | Defined |
| | | in |
+=====================+=================================+=========+
| concise-swid-tag | $$coswid-extension | Section |
| | | 2.3 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| entity-entry | $$entity-extension | Section |
| | | 2.6 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| link-entry | $$link-extension | Section |
| | | 2.7 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| software-meta-entry | $$software-meta-extension | Section |
| | | 2.8 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| resource-collection | $$resource-collection-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| file-entry | $$file-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| directory-entry | $$directory-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| process-entry | $$process-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| resource-entry | $$resource-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| payload-entry | $$payload-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.3 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| evidence-entry | $$evidence-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.4 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
Table 1: CoSWID CDDL Group Extension Points
The CoSWID Items Registry defined in Section 6.1 provides a
registration mechanism allowing new items, and their associated index
values, to be added to the CoSWID model through the use of the CDDL
sockets described in the table above. This registration mechanism
provides for well-known index values for data items in CoSWID
extensions, allowing these index values to be recognized by
implementations supporting a given extension.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
The following additional CDDL sockets are defined in this document to
allow for adding new values to corresponding type-choices (i.e. to
represent enumerations) via custom CDDL specifications.
+==================+=================+=============+
| Enumeration Name | CDDL Socket | Defined in |
+==================+=================+=============+
| version-scheme | $version-scheme | Section 4.1 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| role | $role | Section 4.2 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| ownership | $ownership | Section 4.3 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| rel | $rel | Section 4.4 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| use | $use | Section 4.5 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
Table 2: CoSWID CDDL Enumeration Extension Points
A number of CoSWID value registries are also defined in Section 6.2
that allow new values to be registered with IANA for the enumerations
above. This registration mechanism supports the definition of new
well-known index values and names for new enumeration values used by
CoSWID, which can also be used by other software tagging
specifications. This registration mechanism allows new standardized
enumerated values to be shared between multiple tagging
specifications (and associated implementations) over time.
2.3. The concise-swid-tag Map
The CDDL specification for the root concise-swid-tag map is as
follows and this rule and its constraints MUST be followed when
creating or validating a CoSWID tag:
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
concise-swid-tag = {
tag-id => text / bstr .size 16,
tag-version => integer,
? corpus => bool,
? patch => bool,
? supplemental => bool,
software-name => text,
? software-version => text,
? version-scheme => $version-scheme,
? media => text,
? software-meta => one-or-more<software-meta-entry>,
entity => one-or-more<entity-entry>,
? link => one-or-more<link-entry>,
? payload-or-evidence,
* $$coswid-extension,
global-attributes,
}
payload-or-evidence //= ( payload => payload-entry )
payload-or-evidence //= ( evidence => evidence-entry )
tag-id = 0
software-name = 1
entity = 2
evidence = 3
link = 4
software-meta = 5
payload = 6
corpus = 8
patch = 9
media = 10
supplemental = 11
tag-version = 12
software-version = 13
version-scheme = 14
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric-suffix
$version-scheme /= alphanumeric
$version-scheme /= decimal
$version-scheme /= semver
$version-scheme /= int / text
multipartnumeric = 1
multipartnumeric-suffix = 2
alphanumeric = 3
decimal = 4
semver = 16384
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
The following describes each member of the concise-swid-tag root map.
* global-attributes: A list of items including an optional language
definition to support the processing of text-string values and an
unbounded set of any-attribute items. Described in Section 2.4,
Paragraph 2.
* tag-id (index 0): A 16-byte binary string, or a textual
identifier, uniquely referencing a software component. The tag
identifier MUST be globally unique. Failure to ensure global
uniqueness can create ambiguity in tag use since the tag-id serves
as the global key for matching and lookups. If represented as a
16-byte binary string, the identifier MUST be a valid universally
unique identifier as defined by [RFC4122]. There are no strict
guidelines on how the identifier is structured, but examples
include a 16-byte GUID (e.g., class 4 UUID) [RFC4122], or a DNS
domain name followed by a "/" and a text string, where the domain
name serves to ensure uniqueness across organizations. A textual
tag-id MUST NOT contain a sequence of two underscores ("__", see
Section 6.7).
* tag-version (index 12): An integer value that indicate the
specific release revision of the tag. Typically, the initial
value of this field is set to 0 and the value is increased for
subsequent tags produced for the same software component release.
This value allows a CoSWID tag producer to correct an incorrect
tag previously released without indicating a change to the
underlying software component the tag represents. For example,
the tag version could be changed to add new metadata, to correct a
broken link, to add a missing payload entry, etc. When producing
a revised tag, the new tag-version value MUST be greater than the
old tag-version value.
* corpus (index 8): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
identifies and describes an installable software component in its
pre-installation state. Installable software includes an
installation package or installer for a software component, a
software update, or a patch. If the CoSWID tag represents
installable software, the corpus item MUST be set to "true". If
not provided, the default value MUST be considered "false".
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* patch (index 9): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
identifies and describes an installed patch that has made
incremental changes to a software component installed on an
endpoint. If a CoSWID tag is for a patch, the patch item MUST be
set to "true". If not provided, the default value MUST be
considered "false". A patch item's value MUST NOT be set to
"true" if the installation of the associated software package
changes the version of a software component.
* supplemental (index 11): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
is providing additional information to be associated with another
referenced SWID or CoSWID tag. This allows tools and users to
record their own metadata about a software component without
modifying SWID primary or patch tags created by a software
provider. If a CoSWID tag is a supplemental tag, the supplemental
item MUST be set to "true". If not provided, the default value
MUST be considered "false".
* software-name (index 1): This textual item provides the software
component's name. This name is likely the same name that would
appear in a package management tool. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/@name' in [SWID].
* software-version (index 13): A textual value representing the
specific release or development version of the software component.
This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/@version' in [SWID].
* version-scheme (index 14): An integer or textual value
representing the versioning scheme used for the software-version
item, as an integer label with text escape (Section 2, for the
"Version Scheme" registry Section 4.1. . If an integer value is
used it MUST be an index value in the range -256 to 65535.
Integer values in the range -256 to -1 are reserved for testing
and use in closed environments (see Section 6.2.2). Integer
values in the range 0 to 65535 correspond to registered entries in
the IANA "Software Tag Version Scheme Values" registry (see
Section 6.2.4.
* media (index 10): This text value is a hint to the tag consumer to
understand what target platform this tag applies to. This item
MUST be formatted as a query as defined by the W3C Media Queries
Recommendation (see [W3C.REC-css3-mediaqueries-20120619]).
Support for media queries are included here for interoperability
with [SWID], which does not provide any further requirements for
media query use. Thus, this specification does not clarify how a
media query is to be used for a CoSWID.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* software-meta (index 5): An open-ended map of key/value data
pairs. A number of predefined keys can be used within this item
providing for common usage and semantics across the industry. Use
of this map allows any additional attribute to be included in the
tag. It is expected that industry groups will use a common set of
attribute names to allow for interoperability within their
communities. Described in Section 2.8. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/Meta' in [SWID].
* entity (index 2): Provides information about one or more
organizations responsible for producing the CoSWID tag, and
producing or releasing the software component referenced by this
CoSWID tag. Described in Section 2.6.
* link (index 4): Provides a means to establish relationship arcs
between the tag and another items. A given link can be used to
establish the relationship between tags or to reference another
resource that is related to the CoSWID tag, e.g., vulnerability
database association, ROLIE feed [RFC8322], MUD resource
[RFC8520], software download location, etc). This is modeled
after the HTML "link" element. Described in Section 2.7.
* payload (index 6): This item represents a collection of software
artifacts (described by child items) that compose the target
software. For example, these artifacts could be the files
included with an installer for a corpus tag or installed on an
endpoint when the software component is installed for a primary or
patch tag. The artifacts listed in a payload may be a superset of
the software artifacts that are actually installed. Based on user
selections at install time, an installation might not include
every artifact that could be created or executed on the endpoint
when the software component is installed or run. This item is
mutually exclusive to evidence, as payload can only be provided by
an external entity. Described in Section 2.9.3.
* evidence (index 3): This item can be used to record the results of
a software discovery process used to identify untagged software on
an endpoint or to represent indicators for why software is
believed to be installed on the endpoint. In either case, a
CoSWID tag can be created by the tool performing an analysis of
the software components installed on the endpoint. This item is
mutually exclusive to payload, as evidence is always generated on
the target device ad-hoc. Described in Section 2.9.4.
* $$coswid-extension: This CDDL socket is used to add new
information structures to the concise-swid-tag root map. See
Section 2.2.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
2.4. concise-swid-tag Co-Constraints
The following co-constraints apply to the information provided in the
concise-swid-tag group. If any of these constraints is not met, a
signed tag cannot be used anymore as a signed statement.
* The patch and supplemental items MUST NOT both be set to "true".
* If the patch item is set to "true", the tag SHOULD contain at
least one link item (see Section 2.7) with both the rel item value
of "patches" and an href item specifying an association with the
software that was patched. Without at least one link item the
target of the patch cannot be identified and the patch tag cannot
be applied without external context.
* If the supplemental item is set to "true", the tag SHOULD contain
at least one link item with both the rel item value of
"supplemental" and an href item specifying an association with the
software that is supplemented. Without at least one link item the
target of supplement tag cannot be identified and the patch tag
cannot be applied without external context.
* If all of the corpus, patch, and supplemental items are "false",
or if the corpus item is set to "true", then a software-version
item MUST be included with a value set to the version of the
software component. This ensures that primary and corpus tags
have an identifiable software version.
2.5. The global-attributes Group
The global-attributes group provides a list of items, including an
optional language definition to support the processing of text-string
values, and an unbounded set of any-attribute items allowing for
additional items to be provided as a general point of extension in
the model.
The CDDL for the global-attributes follows:
global-attributes = (
? lang => text,
* any-attribute,
)
any-attribute = (
label => one-or-more<text> / one-or-more<int>
)
label = text / int
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
The following describes each child item of this group.
* lang (index 15): A textual language tag that conforms with IANA
"Language Subtag Registry" [RFC5646]. The context of the
specified language applies to all sibling and descendant textual
values, unless a descendant object has defined a different
language tag. Thus, a new context is established when a
descendant object redefines a new language tag. All textual
values within a given context MUST be considered expressed in the
specified language.
* any-attribute: This sub-group provides a means to include
arbitrary information via label/index ("key") value pairs. Labels
can be either a single integer or text string. Values can be a
single integer, a text string, or an array of integers or text
strings.
2.6. The entity-entry Map
The CDDL for the entity-entry map follows:
entity-entry = {
entity-name => text,
? reg-id => any-uri,
role => one-or-more<$role>,
? thumbprint => hash-entry,
* $$entity-extension,
global-attributes,
}
entity-name = 31
reg-id = 32
role = 33
thumbprint = 34
$role /= tag-creator
$role /= software-creator
$role /= aggregator
$role /= distributor
$role /= licensor
$role /= maintainer
$role /= int / text
tag-creator=1
software-creator=2
aggregator=3
distributor=4
licensor=5
maintainer=6
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
The following describes each child item of this group.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
* entity-name (index 31): The textual name of the organizational
entity claiming the roles specified by the role item for the
CoSWID tag. This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/Entity/@name' in
[SWID].
* reg-id (index 32): The registration id value is intended to
uniquely identify a naming authority in a given scope (e.g.,
global, organization, vendor, customer, administrative domain,
etc.) for the referenced entity. The value of a registration ID
MUST be a RFC 3986 URI; it is not intended to be dereferenced.
The scope will usually be the scope of an organization.
* role (index 33): An integer or textual value (integer label with
text escape, see Section 2) representing the relationship(s)
between the entity, and this tag or the referenced software
component. If an integer value is used it MUST be an index value
in the range -256 to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1
are reserved for testing and use in closed environments (see
Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond
to registered entries in the IANA "Software Tag Entity Role
Values" registry (see Section 6.2.5.
The following additional requirements exist for the use of the
"role" item:
- An entity item MUST be provided with the role of "tag-creator"
for every CoSWID tag. This indicates the organization that
created the CoSWID tag.
- An entity item SHOULD be provided with the role of "software-
creator" for every CoSWID tag, if this information is known to
the tag creator. This indicates the organization that created
the referenced software component.
* thumbprint (index 34): The value of the thumbprint item provides a
hash (i.e. the thumbprint) of the signing entity's public key
certificate. This provides an indicator of which entity signed
the CoSWID tag, which will typically be the tag creator. See
Section 2.9.1 for more details on the use of the hash-entry data
structure.
* $$entity-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
entity-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
2.7. The link-entry Map
The CDDL for the link-entry map follows:
link-entry = {
? artifact => text,
href => any-uri,
? media => text,
? ownership => $ownership,
rel => $rel,
? media-type => text,
? use => $use,
* $$link-extension,
global-attributes,
}
media = 10
artifact = 37
href = 38
ownership = 39
rel = 40
media-type = 41
use = 42
$ownership /= shared
$ownership /= private
$ownership /= abandon
$ownership /= int / text
abandon=1
private=2
shared=3
$rel /= ancestor
$rel /= component
$rel /= feature
$rel /= installationmedia
$rel /= packageinstaller
$rel /= parent
$rel /= patches
$rel /= requires
$rel /= see-also
$rel /= supersedes
$rel /= supplemental
$rel /= -356..65536 / text
ancestor=1
component=2
feature=3
installationmedia=4
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
packageinstaller=5
parent=6
patches=7
requires=8
see-also=9
supersedes=10
supplemental=11
$use /= optional
$use /= required
$use /= recommended
$use /= int / text
optional=1
required=2
recommended=3
The following describes each member of this map.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
* artifact (index 37): To be used with rel="installation-media",
this item's value provides the absolute filesystem path to the
installer executable or script that can be run to launch the
referenced installation. Links with the same artifact name MUST
be considered mirrors of each other, allowing the installation
media to be acquired from any of the described sources.
* href (index 38): A URI-reference [RFC3986] for the referenced
resource. The "href" item's value can be, but is not limited to,
the following (which is a slightly modified excerpt from [SWID]):
- If no URI scheme is provided, then the URI-reference is a
relative reference relative to the base URI of the CoSWID tag,
i.e., the URI under which the CoSWID tag was provided. For
example, "./folder/supplemental.coswid".
- a physical resource location with any acceptable URI scheme
(e.g., file:// http:// https:// ftp://)
- a URI with "swid:" as the scheme refers to another SWID or
CoSWID by the referenced tag's tag-id. This URI needs to be
resolved in the context of the endpoint by software that can
lookup other SWID or CoSWID tags. For example, "swid:2df9de35-
0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c" references the tag with the tag-id
value "2df9de35-0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c".
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
- a URI with "swidpath:" as the scheme, which refers to another
software tag via an XPATH query [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] that
matches items in that tag (Section 5.2). This scheme is
provided for compatibility with [SWID]. This specification
does not define how to resolve an XPATH query in the context of
CBOR, see Section 5.2.
* media (index 10): A hint to the consumer of the link to what
target platform the link is applicable to. This item represents a
query as defined by the W3C Media Queries Recommendation (see
[W3C.REC-css3-mediaqueries-20120619]). As highlighted in media
defined in Section 2.3, support for media queries are included
here for interoperability with [SWID], which does not provide any
further requirements for media query use. Thus, this
specification does not clarify how a media query is to be used for
a CoSWID.
* ownership (index 39): An integer or textual value (integer label
with text escape, see Section 2, for the "Software Tag Link
Ownership Values" registry Section 4.3) used when the "href" item
references another software component to indicate the degree of
ownership between the software component referenced by the CoSWID
tag and the software component referenced by the link. If an
integer value is used it MUST be an index value in the range -256
to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1 are reserved for
testing and use in closed environments (see Section 6.2.2).
Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond to registered
entries in the "Software Tag Link Ownership Values" registry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* rel (index 40): An integer or textual value that (integer label
with text escape, see Section 2, for the "Software Tag Link Link
Relationship Values" registry Section 4.3) identifies the
relationship between this CoSWID and the target resource
identified by the "href" item. If an integer value is used it
MUST be an index value in the range -256 to 65535. Integer values
in the range -256 to -1 are reserved for testing and use in closed
environments (see Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0
to 65535 correspond to registered entries in the IANA "Software
Tag Link Relationship Values" registry (see Section 6.2.7. If a
string value is used it MUST be either a private use name as
defined in Section 6.2.2 or a "Relation Name" from the IANA "Link
Relation Types" registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-
relations/link-relations.xhtml as defined by [RFC8288]. When a
string value defined in the IANA "Software Tag Link Relationship
Values" registry matches a Relation Name defined in the IANA "Link
Relation Types" registry, the index value in the IANA "Software
Tag Link Relationship Values" registry MUST be used instead, as
this relationship has a specialized meaning in the context of a
CoSWID tag. String values correspond to registered entries in the
"Software Tag Link Relationship Values" registry.
* media-type (index 41): A link can point to arbitrary resources on
the endpoint, local network, or Internet using the href item. Use
of this item supplies the resource consumer with a hint of what
type of resource to expect. (This is a _hint_: There is no
obligation for the server hosting the target of the URI to use the
indicated media type when the URI is dereferenced.) Media types
are identified by referencing a "Name" from the IANA "Media Types"
registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-
types.xhtml. This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/Link/@type' in
[SWID].
* use (index 42): An integer or textual value (integer label with
text escape, see Section 2, for the "Software Tag Link Link
Relationship Values" registry Section 4.3) used to determine if
the referenced software component has to be installed before
installing the software component identified by the COSWID tag.
If an integer value is used it MUST be an index value in the range
-256 to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1 are reserved
for testing and use in closed environments (see Section 6.2.2).
Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond to registered
entries in the IANA "Link Use Values" registry (see Section 6.2.8.
If a string value is used it MUST be a private use name as defined
in Section 6.2.2. String values correspond to registered entries
in the "Software Tag Link Use Values" registry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* $$link-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the link-
entry map model. See Section 2.2.
2.8. The software-meta-entry Map
The CDDL for the software-meta-entry map follows:
software-meta-entry = {
? activation-status => text,
? channel-type => text,
? colloquial-version => text,
? description => text,
? edition => text,
? entitlement-data-required => bool,
? entitlement-key => text,
? generator => text / bstr .size 16,
? persistent-id => text,
? product => text,
? product-family => text,
? revision => text,
? summary => text,
? unspsc-code => text,
? unspsc-version => text,
* $$software-meta-extension,
global-attributes,
}
activation-status = 43
channel-type = 44
colloquial-version = 45
description = 46
edition = 47
entitlement-data-required = 48
entitlement-key = 49
generator = 50
persistent-id = 51
product = 52
product-family = 53
revision = 54
summary = 55
unspsc-code = 56
unspsc-version = 57
The following describes each child item of this group.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* activation-status (index 43): A textual value that identifies how
the software component has been activated, which might relate to
specific terms and conditions for its use (e.g., Trial,
Serialized, Licensed, Unlicensed, etc) and relate to an
entitlement. This attribute is typically used in supplemental
tags as it contains information that might be selected during a
specific install.
* channel-type (index 44): A textual value that identifies which
sales, licensing, or marketing channel the software component has
been targeted for (e.g., Volume, Retail, OEM, Academic, etc).
This attribute is typically used in supplemental tags as it
contains information that might be selected during a specific
install.
* colloquial-version (index 45): A textual value for the software
component's informal or colloquial version. Examples may include
a year value, a major version number, or similar value that are
used to identify a group of specific software component releases
that are part of the same release/support cycle. This version can
be the same through multiple releases of a software component,
while the software-version specified in the concise-swid-tag group
is much more specific and will change for each software component
release. This version is intended to be used for string
comparison (byte-by-byte) only and is not intended to be used to
determine if a specific value is earlier or later in a sequence.
* description (index 46): A textual value that provides a detailed
description of the software component. This value MAY be multiple
paragraphs separated by CR LF characters as described by
[RFC5198].
* edition (index 47): A textual value indicating that the software
component represents a functional variation of the code base used
to support multiple software components. For example, this item
can be used to differentiate enterprise, standard, or professional
variants of a software component.
* entitlement-data-required (index 48): A boolean value that can be
used to determine if accompanying proof of entitlement is needed
when a software license reconciliation process is performed.
* entitlement-key (index 49): A vendor-specific textual key that can
be used to identify and establish a relationship to an
entitlement. Examples of an entitlement-key might include a
serial number, product key, or license key. For values that
relate to a given software component install (i.e., license key),
a supplemental tag will typically contain this information. In
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
other cases, where a general-purpose key can be provided that
applies to all possible installs of the software component on
different endpoints, a primary tag will typically contain this
information. Since CoSWID tags are not intended to contain
confidential information, tag authors are advised not to record
unprotected, private software license keys in this field.
* generator (index 50): The name (or tag-id) of the software
component that created the CoSWID tag. If the generating software
component has a SWID or CoSWID tag, then the tag-id for the
generating software component SHOULD be provided.
* persistent-id (index 51): A globally unique identifier used to
identify a set of software components that are related. Software
components sharing the same persistent-id can be different
versions. This item can be used to relate software components,
released at different points in time or through different release
channels, that may not be able to be related through use of the
link item.
* product (index 52): A basic name for the software component that
can be common across multiple tagged software components (e.g.,
Apache HTTPD).
* product-family (index 53): A textual value indicating the software
components overall product family. This should be used when
multiple related software components form a larger capability that
is installed on multiple different endpoints. For example, some
software families may consist of server, client, and shared
service components that are part of a larger capability. Email
systems, enterprise applications, backup services, web
conferencing, and similar capabilities are examples of families.
Use of this item is not intended to represent groups of software
that are bundled or installed together. The persistent-id or link
items SHOULD be used to relate bundled software components.
* revision (index 54): A string value indicating an informal or
colloquial release version of the software. This value can
provide a different version value as compared to the software-
version specified in the concise-swid-tag group. This is useful
when one or more releases need to have an informal version label
that differs from the specific exact version value specified by
software-version. Examples can include SP1, RC1, Beta, etc.
* summary (index 55): A short description of the software component.
This MUST be a single sentence suitable for display in a user
interface.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* unspsc-code (index 56): An 8 digit UNSPSC classification code for
the software component as defined by the United Nations Standard
Products and Services Code (UNSPSC, [UNSPSC]).
* unspsc-version (index 57): The version of UNSPSC used to define
the unspsc-code value.
* $$meta-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
software-meta-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9. The Resource Collection Definition
2.9.1. The hash-entry Array
CoSWID adds explicit support for the representation of hash entries
using algorithms that are registered in the IANA "Named Information
Hash Algorithm Registry" [IANA.named-information] using the hash
member (index 7) and the corresponding hash-entry type. This is the
equivalent of the namespace qualified "hash" attribute in [SWID].
hash-entry = [
hash-alg-id: int,
hash-value: bytes,
]
The number used as a value for hash-alg-id is an integer-based hash
algorithm identifier who's value MUST refer to an ID in the IANA
"Named Information Hash Algorithm Registry" [IANA.named-information]
with a Status of "current" (at the time the generator software was
built or later); other hash algorithms MUST NOT be used. If the
hash-alg-id is not known, then the integer value "0" MUST be used.
This allows for conversion from ISO SWID tags [SWID], which do not
allow an algorithm to be identified for this field.
The hash-value MUST represent the raw hash value as a byte string (as
opposed to, e.g., base64 encoded) generated from the representation
of the resource using the hash algorithm indicated by hash-alg-id.
2.9.2. The resource-collection Group
A list of items both used in evidence (created by a software
discovery process) and payload (installed in an endpoint) content of
a CoSWID tag document to structure and differentiate the content of
specific CoSWID tag types. Potential content includes directories,
files, processes, or resources.
The CDDL for the resource-collection group follows:
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
path-elements-group = ( ? directory => one-or-more<directory-entry>,
? file => one-or-more<file-entry>,
)
resource-collection = (
path-elements-group,
? process => one-or-more<process-entry>,
? resource => one-or-more<resource-entry>,
* $$resource-collection-extension,
)
filesystem-item = (
? key => bool,
? location => text,
fs-name => text,
? root => text,
)
file-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? size => uint,
? file-version => text,
? hash => hash-entry,
* $$file-extension,
global-attributes,
}
directory-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? path-elements => { path-elements-group },
* $$directory-extension,
global-attributes,
}
process-entry = {
process-name => text,
? pid => integer,
* $$process-extension,
global-attributes,
}
resource-entry = {
type => text,
* $$resource-extension,
global-attributes,
}
directory = 16
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
file = 17
process = 18
resource = 19
size = 20
file-version = 21
key = 22
location = 23
fs-name = 24
root = 25
path-elements = 26
process-name = 27
pid = 28
type = 29
The following describes each member of the groups and maps
illustrated above.
* filesystem-item: A list of common items used for representing the
filesystem root, relative location, name, and significance of a
file or directory item.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
* directory (index 16): A directory item allows child directory and
file items to be defined within a directory hierarchy for the
software component.
* file (index 17): A file item allows details about a file to be
provided for the software component.
* process (index 18): A process item allows details to be provided
about the runtime behavior of the software component, such as
information that will appear in a process listing on an endpoint.
* resource (index 19): A resource item can be used to provide
details about an artifact or capability expected to be found on an
endpoint or evidence collected related to the software component.
This can be used to represent concepts not addressed directly by
the directory, file, or process items. Examples include: registry
keys, bound ports, etc. The equivalent construct in [SWID] is
currently under specified. As a result, this item might be
further defined through extension in the future.
* size (index 20): The file's size in bytes.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* file-version (index 21): The file's version as reported by
querying information on the file from the operating system (if
available). This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/File/@version' in [SWID].
* hash (index 7): A hash of the file as described in Section 2.9.1.
* key (index 22): A boolean value indicating if a file or directory
is significant or required for the software component to execute
or function properly. These are files or directories that can be
used to affirmatively determine if the software component is
installed on an endpoint.
* location (index 23): The filesystem path where a file is expected
to be located when installed or copied. The location MUST be
either relative to the location of the parent directory item
(preferred), or relative to the location of the CoSWID tag (as
indicated in the location value in the evidence entry map) if no
parent is defined. The location MUST NOT include a file's name,
which is provided by the fs-name item.
* fs-name (index 24): The name of the directory or file without any
path information. This aligns with a file "name" in [SWID]. This
item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/(File|Directory)/@name' in
[SWID].
* root (index 25): A host-specific name for the root of the
filesystem. The location item is considered relative to this
location if specified. If not provided, the value provided by the
location item is expected to be relative to its parent or the
location of the CoSWID tag if no parent is provided.
* path-elements (index 26): This group allows a hierarchy of
directory and file items to be defined in payload or evidence
items. This is a construction within the CDDL definition of
CoSWID to support shared syntax and does not appear in [SWID].
* process-name (index 27): The software component's process name as
it will appear in an endpoint's process list. This aligns with a
process "name" in [SWID]. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/Process/@name' in [SWID].
* pid (index 28): The process ID identified for a running instance
of the software component in the endpoint's process list. This is
used as part of the evidence item.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* type (index 29): A human-readable string indicating the type of
resource.
* $$resource-collection-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to
extend the resource-collection group model. This can be used to
add new specialized types of resources. See Section 2.2.
* $$file-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the file-
entry group model. See Section 2.2.
* $$directory-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
directory-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
* $$process-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
process-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
* $$resource-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
resource-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9.3. The payload-entry Map
The CDDL for the payload-entry map follows:
payload-entry = {
resource-collection,
* $$payload-extension,
global-attributes,
}
The following describes each child item of this group.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
* resource-collection: The resource-collection group described in
Section 2.9.2.
* $$payload-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
payload-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9.4. The evidence-entry Map
The CDDL for the evidence-entry map follows:
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
evidence-entry = {
resource-collection,
? date => integer-time,
? device-id => text,
? location => text,
* $$evidence-extension,
global-attributes,
}
date = 35
device-id = 36
The following describes each child item of this group.
* global-attributes: The global-attributes group described in
Section 2.4, Paragraph 2.
* resource-collection: The resource-collection group described in
Section 2.9.2.
* date (index 35): The date and time the information was collected
pertaining to the evidence item.
* device-id (index 36): The endpoint's string identifier from which
the evidence was collected.
* location (index 23): The absolute filepath of the location of the
CoSWID tag generated as evidence. (Location values in filesystem-
items in the payload can be expressed relative to this location.)
* $$evidence-extension: This CDDL socket can be used to extend the
evidence-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.10. Full CDDL Specification
In order to create a valid CoSWID document the structure of the
corresponding CBOR message MUST adhere to the following CDDL
specification.
<CODE BEGINS>
concise-swid-tag = {
tag-id => text / bstr .size 16,
tag-version => integer,
? corpus => bool,
? patch => bool,
? supplemental => bool,
software-name => text,
? software-version => text,
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
? version-scheme => $version-scheme,
? media => text,
? software-meta => one-or-more<software-meta-entry>,
entity => one-or-more<entity-entry>,
? link => one-or-more<link-entry>,
? payload-or-evidence,
* $$coswid-extension,
global-attributes,
}
payload-or-evidence //= ( payload => payload-entry )
payload-or-evidence //= ( evidence => evidence-entry )
any-uri = uri
label = text / int
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric-suffix
$version-scheme /= alphanumeric
$version-scheme /= decimal
$version-scheme /= semver
$version-scheme /= int / text
any-attribute = (
label => one-or-more<text> / one-or-more<int>
)
one-or-more<T> = T / [ 2* T ]
global-attributes = (
? lang => text,
* any-attribute,
)
hash-entry = [
hash-alg-id: int,
hash-value: bytes,
]
entity-entry = {
entity-name => text,
? reg-id => any-uri,
role => one-or-more<$role>,
? thumbprint => hash-entry,
* $$entity-extension,
global-attributes,
}
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
$role /= tag-creator
$role /= software-creator
$role /= aggregator
$role /= distributor
$role /= licensor
$role /= maintainer
$role /= int / text
link-entry = {
? artifact => text,
href => any-uri,
? media => text,
? ownership => $ownership,
rel => $rel,
? media-type => text,
? use => $use,
* $$link-extension,
global-attributes,
}
$ownership /= shared
$ownership /= private
$ownership /= abandon
$ownership /= int / text
$rel /= ancestor
$rel /= component
$rel /= feature
$rel /= installationmedia
$rel /= packageinstaller
$rel /= parent
$rel /= patches
$rel /= requires
$rel /= see-also
$rel /= supersedes
$rel /= supplemental
$rel /= -256..64436 / text
$use /= optional
$use /= required
$use /= recommended
$use /= int / text
software-meta-entry = {
? activation-status => text,
? channel-type => text,
? colloquial-version => text,
? description => text,
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
? edition => text,
? entitlement-data-required => bool,
? entitlement-key => text,
? generator => text / bstr .size 16,
? persistent-id => text,
? product => text,
? product-family => text,
? revision => text,
? summary => text,
? unspsc-code => text,
? unspsc-version => text,
* $$software-meta-extension,
global-attributes,
}
path-elements-group = ( ? directory => one-or-more<directory-entry>,
? file => one-or-more<file-entry>,
)
resource-collection = (
path-elements-group,
? process => one-or-more<process-entry>,
? resource => one-or-more<resource-entry>,
* $$resource-collection-extension,
)
file-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? size => uint,
? file-version => text,
? hash => hash-entry,
* $$file-extension,
global-attributes,
}
directory-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? path-elements => { path-elements-group },
* $$directory-extension,
global-attributes,
}
process-entry = {
process-name => text,
? pid => integer,
* $$process-extension,
global-attributes,
}
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
resource-entry = {
type => text,
* $$resource-extension,
global-attributes,
}
filesystem-item = (
? key => bool,
? location => text,
fs-name => text,
? root => text,
)
payload-entry = {
resource-collection,
* $$payload-extension,
global-attributes,
}
evidence-entry = {
resource-collection,
? date => integer-time,
? device-id => text,
? location => text,
* $$evidence-extension,
global-attributes,
}
integer-time = #6.1(int)
; "global map member" integer indexes
tag-id = 0
software-name = 1
entity = 2
evidence = 3
link = 4
software-meta = 5
payload = 6
hash = 7
corpus = 8
patch = 9
media = 10
supplemental = 11
tag-version = 12
software-version = 13
version-scheme = 14
lang = 15
directory = 16
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
file = 17
process = 18
resource = 19
size = 20
file-version = 21
key = 22
location = 23
fs-name = 24
root = 25
path-elements = 26
process-name = 27
pid = 28
type = 29
entity-name = 31
reg-id = 32
role = 33
thumbprint = 34
date = 35
device-id = 36
artifact = 37
href = 38
ownership = 39
rel = 40
media-type = 41
use = 42
activation-status = 43
channel-type = 44
colloquial-version = 45
description = 46
edition = 47
entitlement-data-required = 48
entitlement-key = 49
generator = 50
persistent-id = 51
product = 52
product-family = 53
revision = 54
summary = 55
unspsc-code = 56
unspsc-version = 57
; "version-scheme" integer indexes
multipartnumeric = 1
multipartnumeric-suffix = 2
alphanumeric = 3
decimal = 4
semver = 16384
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
; "role" integer indexes
tag-creator=1
software-creator=2
aggregator=3
distributor=4
licensor=5
maintainer=6
; "ownership" integer indexes
abandon=1
private=2
shared=3
; "rel" integer indexes
ancestor=1
component=2
feature=3
installationmedia=4
packageinstaller=5
parent=6
patches=7
requires=8
see-also=9
supersedes=10
; supplemental=11 ; this is already defined earlier
; "use" integer indexes
optional=1
required=2
recommended=3
<CODE ENDS>
3. Determining the Type of CoSWID
The operational model for SWID and CoSWID tags was introduced in
Section 1.1, which described four different CoSWID tag types. The
following additional rules apply to the use of CoSWID tags to ensure
that created tags properly identify the tag type.
The first matching rule MUST determine the type of the CoSWID tag.
1. Primary Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a primary tag if the
corpus, patch, and supplemental items are "false".
2. Supplemental Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a supplemental
tag if the supplemental item is set to "true".
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
3. Corpus Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a corpus tag if the
corpus item is "true".
4. Patch Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a patch tag if the
patch item is "true".
Note: Multiple of the corpus, patch, and supplemental items can have
values set as "true". The rules above provide a means to determine
the tag's type in such a case. For example, a SWID or CoSWID tag for
a patch installer might have both corpus and patch items set to
"true". In such a case, the tag is a "Corpus Tag". The tag
installed by this installer would have only the patch item set to
"true", making the installed tag type a "Patch Tag".
4. CoSWID Indexed Label Values
This section defines a number of kinds of indexed label values that
are maintained in a registry each (Section 6). These values are
represented as positive integers. In each registry, the value 0 is
marked as Reserved.
4.1. Version Scheme
The following table contains a set of values for use in the concise-
swid-tag group's version-scheme item. Version Scheme Name strings
match the version schemes defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 [SWID]
specification. Index value indicates the value to use as the
version-scheme item's value. The Version Scheme Name provides human-
readable text for the value. The Definition describes the syntax of
allowed values for each entry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=======+=========================+===============================+
| Index | Version Scheme Name | Definition |
+=======+=========================+===============================+
| 1 | multipartnumeric | Numbers separated by dots, |
| | | where the numbers are |
| | | interpreted as decimal |
| | | integers (e.g., 1.2.3, |
| | | 1.2.3.4.5.6.7, 1.4.5, 1.21) |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 2 | multipartnumeric+suffix | Numbers separated by dots, |
| | | where the numbers are |
| | | interpreted as decimal |
| | | integers with an additional |
| | | textual suffix (e.g., 1.2.3a) |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 3 | alphanumeric | Strictly a string, no |
| | | interpretation as number |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 4 | decimal | A single decimal floating |
| | | point number |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 16384 | semver | A semantic version as defined |
| | | by [SWID]. Also see the |
| | | [SEMVER] specification for |
| | | more information |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
Table 3: Version Scheme Values
multipartnumeric and the numbers part of multipartnumeric+suffix are
interpreted as a sequence of numbers and are sorted in
lexicographical order by these numbers (i.e., not by the digits in
the numbers) and then the textual suffix (for
multipartnumeric+suffix). Alphanumeric strings are sorted
lexicographically as character strings. Decimal version numbers are
interpreted as a single floating point number (e.g., 1.25 is less
than 1.3).
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software Tag Version
Scheme Values" registry defined in Section Section 6.2.4. Additional
entries will likely be registered over time in this registry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
A CoSWID producer that is aware of the version scheme that has been
used to select the version value, SHOULD include the optional
version-scheme item to avoid semantic ambiguity. If the CoSWID
producer does not have this information, it SHOULD omit the version-
scheme item. The following heuristics can be used by a CoSWID
consumer, based on the version schemes' partially overlapping value
spaces:
* "decimal" and "multipartnumeric" partially overlap in their value
space when a value matches a decimal number. When a corresponding
software-version item's value falls within this overlapping value
space, the "decimal" version scheme SHOULD be assumed.
* "multipartnumeric" and "semver" partially overlap in their value
space when a "multipartnumeric" value matches the semantic
versioning syntax. When a corresponding software-version item's
value falls within this overlapping value space, the "semver"
version scheme SHOULD be assumed.
* "alphanumeric" and other version schemes might overlap in their
value space. When a corresponding software-version item's value
falls within this overlapping value space, the other version
scheme SHOULD be assumed instead of "alphanumeric".
Note that these heuristics are imperfect and can guess wrong, which
is the reason the version-scheme item SHOULD be included by the
producer.
4.2. Entity Role Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the entity-
entry group's role item (see Section 2.6). These values match the
entity roles defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 [SWID]
specification. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the
role item's value. The "Role Name" provides human-readable text for
the value. The "Definition" describes the semantic meaning of each
entry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=======+=================+========================================+
| Index | Role Name | Definition |
+=======+=================+========================================+
| 1 | tagCreator | The person or organization that |
| | | created the containing SWID or CoSWID |
| | | tag |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 2 | softwareCreator | The person or organization entity that |
| | | created the software component. |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 3 | aggregator | From [SWID], "An organization or |
| | | system that encapsulates software from |
| | | their own and/or other organizations |
| | | into a different distribution process |
| | | (as in the case of virtualization), or |
| | | as a completed system to accomplish a |
| | | specific task (as in the case of a |
| | | value added reseller)." |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 4 | distributor | From [SWID], "An entity that furthers |
| | | the marketing, selling and/or |
| | | distribution of software from the |
| | | original place of manufacture to the |
| | | ultimate user without modifying the |
| | | software, its packaging or its |
| | | labelling." |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 5 | licensor | From [SAM] as "software licensor", a |
| | | "person or organization who owns or |
| | | holds the rights to issue a software |
| | | license for a specific software |
| | | [component]" |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 6 | maintainer | The person or organization that is |
| | | responsible for coordinating and |
| | | making updates to the source code for |
| | | the software component. This SHOULD |
| | | be used when the "maintainer" is a |
| | | different person or organization than |
| | | the original "softwareCreator". |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 4: Entity Role Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software Tag Entity Role
Values" registry defined in Section 6.2.5. Additional values will
likely be registered over time.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
4.3. Link Ownership Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's ownership item (see Section 2.7). These values match
the link ownership values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 [SWID]
specification. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the
link-entry group ownership item's value. The "Ownership Type"
provides human-readable text for the value. The "Definition"
describes the semantic meaning of each entry.
+=======+===========+===============================================+
| Index | Ownership | Definition |
| | Type | |
+=======+===========+===============================================+
| 1 | abandon | If the software component referenced by the |
| | | CoSWID tag is uninstalled, then the |
| | | referenced software SHOULD NOT be |
| | | uninstalled |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2 | private | If the software component referenced by the |
| | | CoSWID tag is uninstalled, then the |
| | | referenced software SHOULD be uninstalled as |
| | | well. |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 3 | shared | If the software component referenced by the |
| | | CoSWID tag is uninstalled, then the |
| | | referenced software SHOULD be uninstalled if |
| | | no other components sharing the software. |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Link Ownership Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software Tag Link
Ownership Values" registry defined in Section 6.2.6. Additional
values will likely be registered over time.
4.4. Link Rel Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's rel item (see Section 2.7). These values match the
link rel values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 [SWID]
specification. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the
link-entry group ownership item's value. The "Relationship Type"
provides human-readable text for the value. The "Definition"
describes the semantic meaning of each entry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=======+===================+=======================================+
| Index | Relationship Type | Definition |
+=======+===================+=======================================+
| 1 | ancestor | The link references a software |
| | | tag for a previous release of |
| | | this software. This can be |
| | | useful to define an upgrade path. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 2 | component | The link references a software |
| | | tag for a separate component of |
| | | this software. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 3 | feature | The link references a |
| | | configurable feature of this |
| | | software that can be enabled or |
| | | disabled without changing the |
| | | installed files. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 4 | installationmedia | The link references the |
| | | installation package that can be |
| | | used to install this software. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 5 | packageinstaller | The link references the |
| | | installation software needed to |
| | | install this software. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 6 | parent | The link references a software |
| | | tag that is the parent of the |
| | | referencing tag. This |
| | | relationship can be used when |
| | | multiple software components are |
| | | part of a software bundle, where |
| | | the "parent" is the software tag |
| | | for the bundle, and each child is |
| | | a "component". In such a case, |
| | | each child component can provide |
| | | a "parent" link relationship to |
| | | the bundle's software tag, and |
| | | the bundle can provide a |
| | | "component" link relationship to |
| | | each child software component. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 7 | patches | The link references a software |
| | | tag that the referencing software |
| | | patches. Typically only used for |
| | | patch tags (see Section 1.1). |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 8 | requires | The link references a |
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
| | | prerequisite for installing this |
| | | software. A patch tag (see |
| | | Section 1.1) can use this to |
| | | represent base software or |
| | | another patch that needs to be |
| | | installed first. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 9 | see-also | The link references other |
| | | software that may be of interest |
| | | that relates to this software. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 10 | supersedes | The link references another |
| | | software that this software |
| | | replaces. A patch tag (see |
| | | Section 1.1) can use this to |
| | | represent another patch that this |
| | | patch incorporates or replaces. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 11 | supplemental | The link references a software |
| | | tag that the referencing tag |
| | | supplements. Used on |
| | | supplemental tags (see |
| | | Section 1.1). |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
Table 6: Link Relationship Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software Tag Link
Relationship Values" registry defined in Section 6.2.7. Additional
values will likely be registered over time.
4.5. Link Use Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's use item (see Section 2.7). These values match the
link use values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 [SWID]
specification. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the
link-entry group use item's value. The "Use Type" provides human-
readable text for the value. The "Definition" describes the semantic
meaning of each entry.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=======+=============+========================================+
| Index | Use Type | Definition |
+=======+=============+========================================+
| 1 | optional | From [SWID], "Not absolutely required; |
| | | the [Link]'d software is installed |
| | | only when specified." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
| 2 | required | From [SWID], "The [Link]'d software is |
| | | absolutely required for an operation |
| | | software installation." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
| 3 | recommended | From [SWID], "Not absolutely required; |
| | | the [Link]'d software is installed |
| | | unless specified otherwise." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 7: Link Use Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software Tag Link Use
Values" registry defined in Section 6.2.8. Additional values will
likely be registered over time.
5. URI Schemes
This specification defines the following URI schemes for use in
CoSWID and to provide interoperability with schemes used in [SWID].
Note: These URI schemes are used in [SWID] without an IANA
registration. The present specification ensures that these URI
schemes are properly defined going forward.
// RFC Ed.: throughout this section, please replace RFC-AAAA with the
// RFC number of this specification and remove this note.
5.1. "swid" URI Scheme
There is a need for a scheme name that can be used in URIs that point
to a specific software tag by that tag's tag-id, such as the use of
the link entry as described in Section 2.7. Since this scheme is
used both in a standards track document and an ISO standard, this
scheme needs to be used without fear of conflicts with current or
future actual schemes. In Section 6.6.1, the scheme "swid" is
registered as a 'permanent' scheme for that purpose.
URIs specifying the "swid" scheme are used to reference a software
tag by its tag-id. A tag-id referenced in this way can be used to
identify the tag resource in the context of where it is referenced
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
from. For example, when a tag is installed on a given device, that
tag can reference related tags on the same device using URIs with
this scheme.
For URIs that use the "swid" scheme, the scheme specific part MUST
consist of a referenced software tag's tag-id. This tag-id MUST be
URI encoded according to [RFC3986] Section 2.1.
The following expression is a valid example:
swid:2df9de35-0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c
5.2. "swidpath" URI Scheme
There is a need for a scheme name that can be used in URIs to
identify a collection of specific software tags with data elements
that match an XPath expression, such as the use of the link entry as
described in Section 2.7. The scheme named "swidpath" is used for
this purpose in [SWID], but not registered. To enable usage without
fear of conflicts with current or future actual schemes, the present
document registers it as a 'permanent' scheme for that purpose (see
Section 6.6.2).
URIs specifying the "swidpath" scheme are used to filter tags out of
a base collection, so that matching tags are included in the
identified tag collection. The XPath expression
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] references the data that must be found in
a given software tag out of base collection for that tag to be
considered a matching tag. Tags to be evaluated (the base
collection) include all tags in the context of where the "swidpath
URI" is referenced from. For example, when a tag is installed on a
given device, that tag can reference related tags on the same device
using a URI with this scheme.
For URIs that use the "swidpath" scheme, the following requirements
apply:
* The scheme specific part MUST be an XPath expression as defined by
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]. The included XPath expression will be
URI encoded according to [RFC3986] Section 2.1.
* This XPath is evaluated over SWID tags, or COSWID tags transformed
into SWID tags, found on a system. A given tag MUST be considered
a match if the XPath evaluation result value has an effective
boolean value of "true" according to [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]
Section 2.4.3.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6. IANA Considerations
This document has a number of IANA considerations, as described in
the following subsections. In summary, 6 new registries are
established with this request, with initial entries provided for each
registry. New values for 5 other registries are also requested.
6.1. CoSWID Items Registry
This registry uses integer values as index values in CBOR maps.
This document defines a new registry titled "CoSWID Items". Future
registrations for this registry are to be made based on [BCP26] as
follows:
+==================+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+==================+=====================================+
| 0-32767 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 32768-4294967295 | Specification Required |
+------------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 8: CoSWID Items Registration Procedures
All negative values are reserved for Private Use.
Initial registrations for the "CoSWID Items" registry are provided
below. Assignments consist of an integer index value, the item name,
and a reference to the defining specification.
+===============+===========================+===============+
| Index | Item Name | Specification |
+===============+===========================+===============+
| 0 | tag-id | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | software-name | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | entity | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | evidence | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | link | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | software-meta | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 6 | payload | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
| 7 | hash | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | corpus | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 9 | patch | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 10 | media | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 11 | supplemental | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | tag-version | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 13 | software-version | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 14 | version-scheme | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 15 | lang | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 16 | directory | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 17 | file | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 18 | process | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 19 | resource | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 20 | size | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 21 | file-version | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 22 | key | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 23 | location | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 24 | fs-name | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 25 | root | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 26 | path-elements | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 27 | process-name | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 28 | pid | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 29 | type | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 30 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
| 31 | entity-name | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 32 | reg-id | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 33 | role | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 34 | thumbprint | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 35 | date | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 36 | device-id | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 37 | artifact | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 38 | href | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 39 | ownership | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 40 | rel | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 41 | media-type | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 42 | use | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 43 | activation-status | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 44 | channel-type | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 45 | colloquial-version | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 46 | description | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 47 | edition | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 48 | entitlement-data-required | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 49 | entitlement-key | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 50 | generator | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 51 | persistent-id | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 52 | product | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 53 | product-family | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 54 | revision | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
| 55 | summary | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 56 | unspsc-code | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 57 | unspsc-version | RFC-AAAA |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 58-4294967295 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+---------------------------+---------------+
Table 9: CoSWID Items Inital Registrations
6.2. Software Tag Values Registries
The following IANA registries provide a mechanism for new values to
be added over time to common enumerations used by SWID and CoSWID.
While neither the CoSWID nor SWID specification is subordinate to the
other and will evolve as their respective standards group chooses,
there is value in supporting alignment between the two standards.
Shared use of common code points, as spelled out in these registries,
will facilitate this alignment, hence the intent for shared use of
these registries and the decision to use "swid" (rather than
"coswid") in registry names.
6.2.1. Registration Procedures
The following registries allow for the registration of index values
and names. New registrations will be permitted through either a
Standards Action with Expert Review policy or a Specification
Required policy [BCP26].
The following registries also reserve the integer-based index values
in the range of -1 to -256 for private use as defined by [BCP26] in
Section 4.1. This allows values -1 to -24 to be expressed as a
single uint_8t in CBOR, and values -25 to -256 to be expressed using
an additional uint_8t in CBOR.
6.2.2. Private Use of Index and Name Values
The integer-based index values in the private use range (-1 to -256)
are intended for testing purposes and closed environments; values in
other ranges SHOULD NOT be assigned for testing.
For names that correspond to private use index values, an
Internationalized Domain Name prefix MUST be used to prevent name
conflicts using the form:
domainprefix/name
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Where both "domainprefix" and "name" MUST each be either an NR-LDH
label or a U-label as defined by [RFC5890], and "name" also MUST be a
unique name within the namespace defined by the "domainprefix". Use
of a prefix in this way allows for a name to be used in the private
use range. This is consistent with the guidance in [BCP178].
6.2.3. Expert Review Criteria
Designated experts MUST ensure that new registration requests meet
the following additional criteria:
* The requesting specification MUST provide a clear semantic
definition for the new entry. This definition MUST clearly
differentiate the requested entry from other previously registered
entries.
* The requesting specification MUST describe the intended use of the
entry, including any co-constraints that exist between the use of
the entry's index value or name, and other values defined within
the SWID/CoSWID model.
* Index values and names outside the private use space MUST NOT be
used without registration. This is considered squatting and MUST
be avoided. Designated experts MUST ensure that reviewed
specifications register all appropriate index values and names.
* Standards track documents MAY include entries registered in the
range reserved for entries under the Specification Required
policy. This can occur when a standards track document provides
further guidance on the use of index values and names that are in
common use, but were not registered with IANA. This situation
SHOULD be avoided.
* All registered names MUST be valid according to the XML Schema
NMTOKEN data type (see [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Section 3.3.4). This ensures that registered names are compatible
with the SWID format [SWID] where they are used.
* Registration of vanity names SHOULD be discouraged. The
requesting specification MUST provide a description of how a
requested name will allow for use by multiple stakeholders.
6.2.4. Software Tag Version Scheme Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software Tag Version
Scheme Values". This registry provides index values for use as
version-scheme item values in this document and version scheme names
for use in [SWID].
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/swid]
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1 with the following associated ranges:
+=============+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 16384-65535 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 10: CoSWID Version Scheme Registration
Procedures
Assignments MUST consist of an integer Index value, the Version
Scheme Name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software Tag Version Scheme Values"
registry are provided below, which are derived from the textual
version scheme names defined in [SWID].
+=============+=========================+=================+
| Index | Version Scheme Name | Specification |
+=============+=========================+=================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | multipartnumeric | See Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 2 | multipartnumeric+suffix | See Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 3 | alphanumeric | See Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 4 | decimal | See Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 5-16383 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 16384 | semver | See Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 16385-65535 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
Table 11: CoSWID Version Scheme Initial Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Designated experts MUST also ensure that newly requested entries
define a value space for the corresponding version item that is
unique from other previously registered entries. Note: The initial
registrations violate this requirement, but are included for
backwards compatibility with [SWID]. See also Section 4.1.
6.2.5. Software Tag Entity Role Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software Tag Entity
Role Values". This registry provides index values for use as entity-
entry role item values in this document and entity role names for use
in [SWID].
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/swid]
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1 with the following associated ranges:
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 12: CoSWID Entity Role Registration
Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer Index value, a Role Name, and a
reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software Tag Entity Role Values"
registry are provided below, which are derived from the textual
entity role names defined in [SWID].
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=======+=================+=================+
| Index | Role Name | Specification |
+=======+=================+=================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1 | tagCreator | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 2 | softwareCreator | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3 | aggregator | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 4 | distributor | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 5 | licensor | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 6 | maintainer | See Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+
Table 13: CoSWID Entity Role Initial
Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
6.2.6. Software Tag Link Ownership Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software Tag Link
Ownership Values". This registry provides index values for use as
link-entry ownership item values in this document and link ownership
names for use in [SWID].
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/swid]
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1 with the following associated ranges:
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 14: CoSWID Link Ownership Registration
Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer Index value, an Ownership Type
Name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software Tag Link Ownership Values"
registry are provided below, which are derived from the textual
entity role names defined in [SWID].
+=======+=====================+=================+
| Index | Ownership Type Name | Definition |
+=======+=====================+=================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | abandon | See Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------+
| 2 | private | See Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------+
| 3 | shared | See Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------+
Table 15: CoSWID Link Ownership Inital
Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
6.2.7. Software Tag Link Relationship Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software Tag Link
Relationship Values". This registry provides index values for use as
link-entry rel item values in this document and link ownership names
for use in [SWID].
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/swid]
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1 with the following associated ranges:
+=============+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0-32767 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 32768-65535 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 16: CoSWID Link Relationship Registration
Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer Index value, the Relationship Type
Name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software Tag Link Relationship Values"
registry are provided below, which are derived from the link
relationship values defined in [SWID].
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
+==========+========================+=================+
| Index | Relationship Type Name | Specification |
+==========+========================+=================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | ancestor | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 2 | component | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 3 | feature | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 4 | installationmedia | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 5 | packageinstaller | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 6 | parent | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 7 | patches | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 8 | requires | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 9 | see-also | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 10 | supersedes | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 11 | supplemental | See Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
| 12-65535 | Unassigned | |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------+
Table 17: CoSWID Link Relationship Initial
Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
Designated experts MUST also ensure that a newly requested entry
documents the URI schemes allowed to be used in an href associated
with the link relationship and the expected resolution behavior of
these URI schemes. This will help to ensure that applications
processing software tags are able to interoperate when resolving
resources referenced by a link of a given type.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6.2.8. Software Tag Link Use Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software Tag Link
Use Values". This registry provides index values for use as link-
entry use item values in this document and link use names for use in
[SWID].
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/swid]
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1 with the following associated ranges:
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 18: CoSWID Link Use Registration Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer Index value, the Link Use Type
Name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software Tag Link Use Values" registry
are provided below, which are derived from the link relationship
values defined in [SWID].
+=======+====================+=================+
| Index | Link Use Type Name | Specification |
+=======+====================+=================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | optional | See Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 2 | required | See Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 3 | recommended | See Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Table 19: CoSWID Link Use Initial Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6.3. swid+cbor Media Type Registration
IANA is requested to add the following to the IANA "Media Types"
registry [IANA.media-types].
Type name: application
Subtype name: swid+cbor
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: Binary (encoded as CBOR [RFC8949]). See
RFC-AAAA for details.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of RFC-AAAA.
Interoperability considerations: Applications MAY ignore any key
value pairs that they do not understand. This allows backwards
compatible extensions to this specification.
Published specification: RFC-AAAA
Applications that use this media type: The type is used by software
asset management systems, vulnerability assessment systems, and in
applications that use remote integrity verification.
Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers specified for "application/swid+cbor" are as
specified for "application/cbor". (At publication of RFC-AAAA, there
is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/cbor".)
Additional information:
Magic number(s): if tagged, first five bytes in hex: da 53 57 49 44
(see Section 8 in RFC-AAAA)
File extension(s): coswid
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Macintosh Universal Type Identifier code: org.ietf.coswid conforms to
public.data
Person & email address to contact for further information: IESG
<iesg@ietf.org>
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: None
Author: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Change controller: IESG
6.4. CoAP Content-Format Registration
IANA is requested to assign a CoAP Content-Format ID for the CoSWID
media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" sub-registry, from the "IETF
Review or IESG Approval" space (256..999), within the "CoRE
Parameters" registry [RFC7252] [IANA.core-parameters]:
+=======================+==========+======+===========+
| Media type | Encoding | ID | Reference |
+=======================+==========+======+===========+
| application/swid+cbor | - | TBD1 | RFC-AAAA |
+-----------------------+----------+------+-----------+
Table 20: CoAP Content-Format IDs
6.5. CBOR Tag Registration
IANA is requested to allocate a tag in the "CBOR Tags" registry
[IANA.cbor-tags], preferably with the specific value requested:
+============+===========+=============================+
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics |
+============+===========+=============================+
| 1398229316 | map | Concise Software Identifier |
| | | (CoSWID) [RFC-AAAA] |
+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+
Table 21: CoSWID CBOR Tag
6.6. URI Scheme Registrations
The ISO 19770-2:2015 SWID specification describes use of the "swid"
and "swidpath" URI schemes, which are currently in use in
implementations. This document continues this use for CoSWID. The
following subsections provide registrations for these schemes in to
ensure that a permanent registration exists for these schemes that is
suitable for use in the SWID and CoSWID specifications.
URI schemes are registered within the "Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) Schemes" registry maintained at [IANA.uri-schemes].
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6.6.1. URI-scheme swid
IANA is requested to register the URI scheme "swid". This
registration request complies with [RFC7595].
Scheme name:
swid
Status:
Permanent
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
Applications that require Software-IDs (SWIDs) or Concise
Software-IDs (CoSWIDs); see Section 5.1 of RFC-AAAA.
Contact:
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Change controller:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Reference:
Section 5.1 in RFC-AAAA
6.6.2. URI-scheme swidpath
IANA is requested to register the URI scheme "swidpath". This
registration request complies with [RFC7595].
Scheme name:
swidpath
Status:
Permanent
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
Applications that require Software-IDs (SWIDs) or Concise
Software-IDs (CoSWIDs); see Section 5.2 of RFC-AAAA.
Contact:
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Change controller:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Reference:
Section 5.2 in RFC-AAAA
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
6.7. CoSWID Model for use in SWIMA Registration
The Software Inventory Message and Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC
specification [RFC8412] defines a standardized method for collecting
an endpoint device's software inventory. A CoSWID can provide
evidence of software installation which can then be used and
exchanged with SWIMA. This registration adds a new entry to the IANA
"Software Data Model Types" registry defined by [RFC8412]
[IANA.pa-tnc-parameters] to support CoSWID use in SWIMA as follows:
Pen: 0
Integer: TBD2
Name: Concise Software Identifier (CoSWID)
Reference: RFC-AAAA
Deriving Software Identifiers:
A Software Identifier generated from a CoSWID tag is expressed as a
concatenation of the form in [RFC5234] as follows:
TAG_CREATOR_REGID "_" "_" UNIQUE_ID
Where TAG_CREATOR_REGID is the reg-id item value of the tag's entity
item having the role value of 1 (corresponding to "tag creator"), and
the UNIQUE_ID is the same tag's tag-id item. If the tag-id item's
value is expressed as a 16-byte binary string, the UNIQUE_ID MUST be
represented using the UUID string representation defined in [RFC4122]
including the "urn:uuid:" prefix.
The TAG_CREATOR_REGID and the UNIQUE_ID are connected with a double
underscore (_), without any other connecting character or whitespace.
7. Signed CoSWID Tags
SWID tags, as defined in the ISO-19770-2:2015 XML schema, can include
cryptographic signatures to protect the integrity of the SWID tag.
In general, tags are signed by the tag creator (typically, although
not exclusively, the vendor of the software component that the SWID
tag identifies). Cryptographic signatures can make any modification
of the tag detectable, which is especially important if the integrity
of the tag is important, such as when the tag is providing reference
integrity measurements for files. The ISO-19770-2:2015 XML schema
uses XML DSIG to support cryptographic signatures.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Signing CoSWID tags follows the procedures defined in CBOR Object
Signing and Encryption [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. A CoSWID
tag MUST be wrapped in a COSE Signature structure, either COSE_Sign1
or COSE_Sign. In the first case, a Single Signer Data Object
(COSE_Sign1) contains a single signature and MUST be signed by the
tag creator. The following CDDL specification defines a restrictive
subset of COSE header parameters that MUST be used in the protected
header in this case.
<CODE BEGINS>
COSE-Sign1-coswid<payload> = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signed-coswid-header,
unprotected: unprotected-signed-coswid-header,
payload: bstr .cbor payload,
signature: bstr,
]
cose-label = int / tstr
cose-values = any
protected-signed-coswid-header = {
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
3 => "application/swid+cbor",
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
unprotected-signed-coswid-header = {
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
<CODE ENDS>
The COSE_Sign structure allows for more than one signature, one of
which MUST be issued by the tag creator, to be applied to a CoSWID
tag and MAY be used. The corresponding usage scenarios are domain-
specific and require well-specified application guidance.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
<CODE BEGINS>
COSE-Sign-coswid<payload> = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signed-coswid-header1,
unprotected: unprotected-signed-coswid-header,
payload: bstr .cbor payload,
signature: [ * COSE_Signature ],
]
protected-signed-coswid-header1 = {
3 => "application/swid+cbor",
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
protected-signature-coswid-header = {
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
unprotected-sign-coswid-header = {
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
COSE_Signature = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signature-coswid-header,
unprotected: unprotected-sign-coswid-header,
signature : bstr
]
<CODE ENDS>
Additionally, the COSE Header counter signature MAY be used as an
attribute in the unprotected header map of the COSE envelope of a
CoSWID [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]. The application of counter
signing enables second parties to provide a signature on a signature
allowing for a proof that a signature existed at a given time (i.e.,
a timestamp).
A CoSWID MUST be signed, using the above mechanism, to protect the
integrity of the CoSWID tag. See the security considerations (in
Section 9) for more information on why a signed CoSWID is valuable in
most cases.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
8. CBOR-Tagged CoSWID Tags
This specification allows for tagged and untagged CBOR data items
that are CoSWID tags. Consecutively, the CBOR tag for CoSWID tags
defined in Table 21 SHOULD be used in conjunction with CBOR data
items that are a CoSWID tags. Other CBOR tags MUST NOT be used with
a CBOR data item that is a CoSWID tag. If tagged, both signed and
unsigned CoSWID tags MUST use the CoSWID CBOR tag. In case a signed
CoSWID is tagged, a CoSWID CBOR tag MUST be appended before the COSE
envelope whether it is a COSE_Untagged_Message or a
COSE_Tagged_Message. In case an unsigned CoSWID is tagged, a CoSWID
CBOR tag MUST be appended before the CBOR data item that is the
CoSWID tag.
<CODE BEGINS>
coswid = unsigned-coswid / signed-coswid
unsigned-coswid = concise-swid-tag / tagged-coswid<concise-swid-tag>
signed-coswid1 = signed-coswid-for<unsigned-coswid>
signed-coswid = signed-coswid1 / tagged-coswid<signed-coswid1>
tagged-coswid<T> = #6.1398229316(T)
signed-coswid-for<payload> = #6.18(COSE-Sign1-coswid<payload>)
/ #6.98(COSE-Sign-coswid<payload>)
<CODE ENDS>
This specification allows for a tagged CoSWID tag to reside in a COSE
envelope that is also tagged with a CoSWID CBOR tag. In cases where
a tag creator is not a signer (e.g., hand-offs between entities in a
trusted portion of a supply-chain), retaining CBOR tags attached to
unsigned CoSWID tags can be of great use. Nevertheless, redundant
use of tags SHOULD be avoided when possible.
9. Security Considerations
The following security considerations for use of CoSWID tags focus
on:
* ensuring the integrity and authenticity of a CoSWID tag
* the application of CoSWID tags to address security challenges
related to unmanaged or unpatched software
* reducing the potential for unintended disclosure of a device's
software load
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
A tag is considered "authoritative" if the CoSWID tag was created by
the software provider. An authoritative CoSWID tag contains
information about a software component provided by the supplier of
the software component, who is expected to be an expert in their own
software. Thus, authoritative CoSWID tags can represent
authoritative information about the software component. The degree
to which this information can be trusted depends on the tag's chain
of custody and the ability to verify a signature provided by the
supplier if present in the CoSWID tag. The provisioning and
validation of CoSWID tags are handled by local policy and is outside
the scope of this document.
A signed CoSWID tag (see Section 7) whose signature has been
validated can be relied upon to be unchanged since it was signed. By
contrast, the data contained in unsigned tags can be altered by any
user or process with write-access to the tag. To support signature
validation, there is the need to associate the right key with the
software provider or party originating the signature in a secure way.
This operation is application specific and needs to be addressed by
the application or a user of the application; a specific approach for
which is out-of-scope for this document.
When an authoritative tag is signed, the originator of the signature
can be verified. A trustworthy association between the signature and
the originator of the signature can be established via trust anchors.
A certification path between a trust anchor and a certificate
including a public key enabling the validation of a tag signature can
realize the assessment of trustworthiness of an authoritative tag.
Verifying that the software provider is the signer is a different
matter. This requires an association between the signature and the
tag's entity item associated corresponding to the software provider.
No mechanism is defined in this draft to make this association;
therefore, this association will need to be handled by local policy.
As always, the validity of a signature does not imply veracity of the
signed statements: anyone can sign assertions such that the software
is from a specific software-creator or that a specific persistent-id
applies; policy needs to be applied to evaluate these statements and
to determine their suitability for a specific use.
Loss of control of signing credentials used to sign CoSWID tags would
create doubt about the authenticity and integrity of any CoSWID tags
signed using the compromised keys. In such cases, the legitimate tag
signer (namely, the software provider for an authoritative CoSWID
tag) can employ uncompromised signing credentials to create a new
signature on the original tag. The tag version number would not be
incremented since the tag itself was not modified. Consumers of
CoSWID tags would need to validate the tag using the new credentials
and would also need to make use of revocation information available
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
for the compromised credentials to avoid validating tags signed with
them. The process for doing this is beyond the scope of this
specification.
The CoSWID format allows the use of hash values without an
accompanying hash algorithm identifier. This exposes the tags to
some risk of cross-algorithm attacks. We believe that this can
become a practical problem only if some implementations allow the use
of insecure hash algorithms. Since it may not become known
immediately when an algorithm becomes insecure, this leads to a
strong recommendation to only include support for hash algorithms
that are generally considered secure, and not just marginally so.
CoSWID tags are intended to contain public information about software
components and, as such, the contents of a CoSWID tag (as opposed to
the set of tags that apply to the endpoint, see below) does not need
to be protected against unintended disclosure on an endpoint.
Converse, generators of CoSWID tags need to ensure that only public
information is disclosed. Entitlement Keys are an example for
information where particular care is required; tag authors are
advised not to record unprotected, private software license keys in
this field.
CoSWID tags are intended to be easily discoverable by authorized
applications and users on an endpoint in order to make it easy to
determine the tagged software load. Access to the collection of an
endpoint's CoSWID tags needs to be appropriately controlled to
authorized applications and users using an appropriate access control
mechanism.
Since the tag-id of a CoSWID tag can be used as a global index value,
failure to ensure the tag-id's uniqueness can cause collisions or
ambiguity in CoSWID tags that are retrieved or processed using this
identifier. CoSWID is designed to not require a registry of
identifiers. As a result, CoSWID requires the tag creator to employ
a method of generating a unique tag identifier. Specific methods of
generating a unique identifier are beyond the scope of this
specification. A collision in tag-ids may result in false positives/
negatives in software integrity checks or mis-identification of
installed software, undermining CoSWID use cases such as
vulnerability identification, software inventory, etc. If such a
collision is detected, then the tag consumer may want to contact the
maintainer of the CoSWID to have them issue a correction addressing
the collision; however, this also discloses to the maintainer that
the consumer has the other tag with the given tag-id in their
database. More generally speaking, a tag consumer needs to be robust
against such collisions lest the collision become a viable attack
vector.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
CoSWID tags are designed to be easily added and removed from an
endpoint along with the installation or removal of software
components. On endpoints where addition or removal of software
components is tightly controlled, the addition or removal of CoSWID
tags can be similarly controlled. On more open systems, where many
users can manage the software inventory, CoSWID tags can be easier to
add or remove. On such systems, it can be possible to add or remove
CoSWID tags in a way that does not reflect the actual presence or
absence of corresponding software components. Similarly, not all
software products automatically install CoSWID tags, so products can
be present on an endpoint without providing a corresponding CoSWID
tag. As such, any collection of CoSWID tags cannot automatically be
assumed to represent either a complete or fully accurate
representation of the software inventory of the endpoint. However,
especially on endpoint devices that more strictly control the ability
to add or remove applications, CoSWID tags are an easy way to provide
a preliminary understanding of that endpoint's software inventory.
As CoSWID tags do not expire, inhibiting new CoSWID tags from
reaching an intended consumer would render that consumer stuck with
outdated information, potentially leaving associated vulnerabilities
or weaknesses unmitigated. Therefore, a CoSWID tag consumer should
actively check for updated tag-versions via more than one means.
This specification makes use of relative paths (e.g., filesystem
paths) in several places. A signed COSWID tag cannot make use of
these to derive information that is considered to be covered under
the signature. Typically, relative file system paths will be used to
identify targets for an installation, not sources of tag information.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Any report of an endpoint's CoSWID tag collection provides
information about the software inventory of that endpoint. If such a
report is exposed to an attacker, this can tell them which software
products and versions thereof are present on the endpoint. By
examining this list, the attacker might learn of the presence of
applications that are vulnerable to certain types of attacks. As
noted earlier, CoSWID tags are designed to be easily discoverable by
authorized applications and users on an endpoint, but this does not
present a significant risk since an attacker would already need to
have access to the endpoint to view that information. However, when
the endpoint transmits its software inventory to another party, or
that inventory is stored on a server for later analysis, this can
potentially expose this information to attackers who do not yet have
access to the endpoint. For this reason, it is important to protect
the confidentiality of CoSWID tag information that has been collected
from an endpoint in transit and at rest, not because those tags
individually contain sensitive information, but because the
collection of CoSWID tags and their association with an endpoint
reveals information about that endpoint's attack surface.
Finally, both the ISO-19770-2:2015 XML schema SWID definition and the
CoSWID CDDL specification allow for the construction of "infinite"
tags with link item loops or tags that contain malicious content with
the intent of creating non-deterministic states during validation or
processing of those tags. While software providers are unlikely to
do this, CoSWID tags can be created by any party and the CoSWID tags
collected from an endpoint could contain a mixture of vendor and non-
vendor created tags. For this reason, a CoSWID tag might contain
potentially malicious content. Input sanitization, loop detection,
and signature verification are ways that implementations can address
this concern.
More generally speaking, the security considerations of [RFC8949],
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], and [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]
apply.
10. Privacy Consideration
As noted in Section 9, collected information about an endpoint's
software load, such as what might be represented by an endpoint's
CoSWID tag collection, could be used to identify vulnerable software
for attack. Collections of endpoint software information also can
have privacy implications for users. The set of application a user
installs can give clues to personal matters such as political
affiliation, banking and investments, gender, sexual orientation,
medical concerns, etc. While the collection of CoSWID tags on an
endpoint wouldn't increase the privacy risk (since a party able to
view those tags could also view the applications themselves), if
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
those CoSWID tags are gathered and stored in a repository somewhere,
visibility into the repository now also gives visibility into a
user's application collection. For this reason, repositories of
collected CoSWID tags not only need to be protected against
collection by malicious parties, but even authorized parties will
need to be vetted and made aware of privacy responsibilities
associated with having access to this information. Likewise, users
should be made aware that their software inventories are being
collected from endpoints. Furthermore, when collected and stored by
authorized parties or systems, the inventory data needs to be
protected as both security and privacy sensitive information.
11. Change Log
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
[THIS SECTION TO BE REMOVED BY THE RFC EDITOR.]
Changes from version 12 to version 14:
* Moved key identifier to protected COSE header
* Fixed index reference for hash
* Removed indirection of CDDL type definition for filesystem-item
* Fixed quantity of resource and process
* Updated resource-collection
* Renamed socket name in software-meta to be consistent in naming
* Aligned excerpt examples in I-D text with full CDDL
* Fixed titles where title was referring to group instead of map
* Added missing date in SEMVER
* Fixed root cardinality for file and directory, etc.
* Transformed path-elements-entry from map to group for re-usability
* Scrubbed IANA Section
* Removed redundant supplemental rule
* Aligned discrepancy with ISO spec.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* Addressed comments on typos.
* Fixed kramdown nits and BCP reference.
* Addressed comments from WGLC reviewers.
Changes in version 12:
* Addressed a bunch of minor editorial issues based on WGLC
feedback.
* Added text about the use of UTF-8 in CoSWID.
* Adjusted tag-id to allow for a UUID to be provided as a bstr.
* Cleaned up descriptions of index ranges throughout the document,
removing discussion of 8 bit, 16 bit, etc.
* Adjusted discussion of private use ranges to use negative integer
values and to be more clear throughout the document.
* Added discussion around resolving overlapping value spaces for
version schemes.
* Added a set of expert review criteria for new IANA registries
created by this document.
* Added new registrations for the "swid" and "swidpath" URI schemes,
and for using CoSWID with SWIMA.
Changes from version 03 to version 11:
* Reduced representation complexity of the media-entry type and
removed the Section describing the older data structure.
* Added more signature schemes from COSE
* Included a minimal required set of normative language
* Reordering of attribute name to integer label by priority
according to semantics.
* Added an IANA registry for CoSWID items supporting future
extension.
* Cleaned up IANA registrations, fixing some inconsistencies in the
table labels.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* Added additional CDDL sockets for resource collection entries
providing for additional extension points to address future SWID/
CoSWID extensions.
* Updated Section on extension points to address new CDDL sockets
and to reference the new IANA registry for items.
* Removed unused references and added new references to address
placeholder comments.
* Added table with semantics for the link ownership item.
* Clarified language, made term use more consistent, fixed
references, and replacing lowercase RFC2119 keywords.
Changes from version 02 to version 03:
* Updated core CDDL including the CDDL design pattern according to
RFC 8428.
Changes from version 01 to version 02:
* Enforced a more strict separation between the core CoSWID
definition and additional usage by moving content to corresponding
appendices.
* Removed artifacts inherited from the reference schema provided by
ISO (e.g., NMTOKEN(S))
* Simplified the core data definition by removing group and type
choices where possible
* Minor reordering of map members
* Added a first extension point to address requested flexibility for
extensions beyond the any-element
Changes from version 00 to version 01:
* Ambiguity between evidence and payload eliminated by introducing
explicit members (while still
* allowing for "empty" SWID tags)
* Added a relatively restrictive COSE envelope using cose_sign1 to
define signed CoSWID (single signer only, at the moment)
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* Added a definition how to encode hashes that can be stored in the
any-member using existing IANA tables to reference hash-algorithms
Changes since adopted as a WG I-D -00:
* Removed redundant any-attributes originating from the ISO-
19770-2:2015 XML schema definition
* Fixed broken multi-map members
* Introduced a more restrictive item (any-element-map) to represent
custom maps, increased restriction on types for the any-attribute,
accordingly
* Fixed X.1520 reference
* Minor type changes of some attributes (e.g., NMTOKENS)
* Added semantic differentiation of various name types (e,g. fs-
name)
Changes from version 06 to version 07:
* Added type choices/enumerations based on textual definitions in
19770-2:2015
* Added value registry request
* Added media type registration request
* Added content format registration request
* Added CBOR tag registration request
* Removed RIM appendix to be addressed in complementary draft
* Removed CWT appendix
* Flagged firmware resource collection appendix for revision
* Made use of terminology more consistent
* Better defined use of extension points in the CDDL
* Added definitions for indexed values
* Added IANA registry for Link use indexed values
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Changes from version 05 to version 06:
* Improved quantities
* Included proposals for implicit enumerations that were NMTOKENS
* Added extension points
* Improved exemplary firmware-resource extension
Changes from version 04 to version 05:
* Clarified language around SWID and CoSWID to make more consistent
use of these terms.
* Added language describing CBOR optimizations for single vs. arrays
in the model front matter.
* Fixed a number of grammatical, spelling, and wording issues.
* Documented extension points that use CDDL sockets.
* Converted IANA registration tables to markdown tables, reserving
the 0 value for use when a value is not known.
* Updated a number of references to their current versions.
Changes from version 03 to version 04:
* Re-index label values in the CDDL.
* Added a Section describing the CoSWID model in detail.
* Created IANA registries for entity-role and version-scheme
Changes from version 02 to version 03:
* Updated CDDL to allow for a choice between a payload or evidence
* Re-index label values in the CDDL.
* Added item definitions
* Updated references for COSE, CBOR Web Token, and CDDL.
Changes from version 01 to version 02:
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
* Added extensions for Firmware and CoSWID use as Reference
Integrity Measurements (CoSWID RIM)
* Changes meta handling in CDDL from use of an explicit use of items
to a more flexible unconstrained collection of items.
* Added Sections discussing use of COSE Signatures and CBOR Web
Tokens
Changes from version 00 to version 01:
* Added CWT usage for absolute SWID paths on a device
* Fixed cardinality of type-choices including arrays
* Included first iteration of firmware resource-collection
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[BCP178] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
"Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6648, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.
[BCP26] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]
Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "CBOR Object Signing and
Encryption (COSE): Countersignatures", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-countersign-05, 23 June
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
countersign-05.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, 1 February 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
rfc8152bis-struct-15.txt>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
[IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[IANA.core-parameters]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA.media-types]
IANA, "Media Types",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA.named-information]
IANA, "Named Information",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information>.
[IANA.pa-tnc-parameters]
IANA, "Posture Attribute (PA) Protocol Compatible with
Trusted Network Connect (TNC) Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pa-tnc-parameters>.
[IANA.uri-schemes]
IANA, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC8412] Schmidt, C., Haynes, D., Coffin, C., Waltermire, D., and
J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "Software Inventory Message and
Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC", RFC 8412,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8412, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8412>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[SAM] "Information technology - Software asset management - Part
5: Overview and vocabulary", ISO/IEC 19770-5:2015, 15
November 2013.
[SEMVER] Preston-Werner, T., "Semantic Versioning 2.0.0",
<https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
[SWID] "Information technology - Software asset management - Part
2: Software identification tag", ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015, 1
October 2015.
[UNSPSC] "United Nations Standard Products and Services Code", 26
October 2020, <https://www.unspsc.org/>.
[W3C.REC-css3-mediaqueries-20120619]
Rivoal, F., "Media Queries", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-css3-mediaqueries-20120619, 19 June
2012, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-css3-mediaqueries-
20120619>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, 28 October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028>.
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]
Berglund, A., Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernandez, M.,
Kay, M., Robie, J., and J. Simeon, "XML Path Language
(XPath) 2.0 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xpath20-20101214, 14 December 2010,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214>.
12.2. Informative References
[CamelCase]
"UpperCamelCase", 29 August 2014,
<http://wiki.c2.com/?CamelCase>.
[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]
Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-architecture-
15, 8 February 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15.txt>.
[KebabCase]
"KebabCase", 18 December 2014,
<http://wiki.c2.com/?KebabCase>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC8322] Field, J., Banghart, S., and D. Waltermire, "Resource-
Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange (ROLIE)",
RFC 8322, DOI 10.17487/RFC8322, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8322>.
[RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
Description Specification", RFC 8520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.
[SWID-GUIDANCE]
Waltermire, D., Cheikes, B.A., Feldman, L., and G. Witte,
"Guidelines for the Creation of Interoperable Software
Identification (SWID) Tags", NISTIR 8060, April 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8060>.
[X.1520] "Recommendation ITU-T X.1520 (2014), Common
vulnerabilities and exposures", 20 April 2011.
Acknowledgments
This document draws heavily on the concepts defined in the ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 specification. The authors of this document are
grateful for the prior work of the 19770-2 contributors.
We are also grateful for the careful reviews provided by the IESG
reviewers. Special thanks go to Benjamin Kaduk.
Contributors
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft CoSWID March 2022
Carsten Bormann contributed to the CDDL specifications and the IANA
considerations.
Authors' Addresses
Henk Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
Rheinstrasse 75
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de
Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay
National Security Agency
9800 Savage Road
Ft. Meade, Maryland
United States of America
Email: jmfitz2@cyber.nsa.gov
Charles Schmidt
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
United States of America
Email: cmschmidt@mitre.org
David Waltermire
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
United States of America
Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov
Birkholz, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 82]