Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

v2.0 OS failed CPSR-coding in section 9.1.13 Conformance Clause 13: CSAF asset matching system #708

Closed
sthagen opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #714
Assignees
Labels
bug csaf 2.1 csaf 2.1 work editor-revision already worked on in the editor revision editorial mostly nits and consistency

Comments

@sthagen
Copy link
Contributor

sthagen commented Mar 1, 2024

In section 9.1.17 Conformance Clause 17: CSAF SBOM matching system of the CSAF v2.0 OS is a trace of failed CPSR-coding in list item 11 it says:

  • is able to trigger a run of the asset matching module:

which would be correct within section 9.1.13 Conformance Clause 13: CSAF asset matching system
but for the SBOM matching system it is expected that the run of an SBOM matching module is triggered instead:

  • is able to trigger a run of the SBOM matching module:

https://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/csaf/v2.0/os/csaf-v2.0-os.html#9117-conformance-clause-17-csaf-sbom-matching-system

kudos to an anonymous spotter 👀

@sthagen sthagen added bug editorial mostly nits and consistency csaf 2.1 csaf 2.1 work labels Mar 1, 2024
@sthagen sthagen self-assigned this Mar 1, 2024
tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue Mar 27, 2024
- resolves oasis-tcs#708
- correct copy-paste mistake "asset" => "SBOM"
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 added the editor-revision already worked on in the editor revision label Mar 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug csaf 2.1 csaf 2.1 work editor-revision already worked on in the editor revision editorial mostly nits and consistency
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants