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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Documentation about transport layer ports being IPv4 implies they are not IPv6 #2065

Open
aj-stein-gsa opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2070
Open

Documentation about transport layer ports being IPv4 implies they are not IPv6 #2065

aj-stein-gsa opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2070
Labels
bug

Comments

@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link

Describe the bug

As a developer directly using the official documentation directly through a browser or via OSCAL-based software that provide hints via this documentation, I would like clear explanation of /system-security-plan/system-implementation/component/protocol/port-range inline documentation that suggests the poort range therein is "[w]here applicable this is the IPv4 port range on which the service operates." This framing implies the transport layer ports embedded with in IP (TCP; UDP; SCTP; et cetera) work with IPv4, but not IPv6. I would propose a change to tighten this wording.

Who is the bug affecting

Developers who rely on documentation through direct review or prepare software the use this documentation to hint to developers proper definition of OSCAL data who want clear guidance on port and protocol ranges.

What is affected by this bug

Documentation, Metaschema

How do we replicate this issue

Review the above Metaschema module reference and resulting website documentation rendered.

Expected behavior (i.e. solution)

The documentation does not imply that port ranges are not IPv4 only, clarify they are transport layer protocols (e.g. SCTP, TCP, UDP).

Other comments

No response

Revisions

No response
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs Triage in NIST OSCAL Work Board Nov 9, 2024
aj-stein-gsa added a commit to aj-stein-gsa/OSCAL that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa
Clarify protocol port-range docs for usnistgov#2065
eabc7a2
@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa mentioned this issue Nov 13, 2024
Merged
6 tasks
aj-stein-gsa added a commit to aj-stein-gsa/OSCAL that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa
Clarify protocol port-range docs for usnistgov#2065
d48cfa9
aj-stein-gsa added a commit to aj-stein-gsa/OSCAL that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa
Revert start flag datatype per usnistgov#2065 review
415600a 
By rebasing I reintroduced the deprecated CamelCase datatype variant.
This change reintroduces the new kebab case preferred in Metaschema
models, per @imichael's request during code review.
iMichaela pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa @iMichaela
Clarify protocol port-range docs for #2065
36e3bb8
iMichaela pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa @iMichaela
Revert start flag datatype per #2065 review
708ffcf 
By rebasing I reintroduced the deprecated CamelCase datatype variant.
This change reintroduces the new kebab case preferred in Metaschema
models, per @imichael's request during code review.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug
Projects
NIST OSCAL Work Board
Status: Needs Triage
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Clarify protocol port-range docs for #2065 aj-stein-gsa/OSCAL
1 participant
@aj-stein-gsa