OSCAL
OSCAL copied to clipboard
Standardize Accepted-Value Reference props for Implementation parameters
User Story:
As an OSCAL Application Developer, I would like a standard format to describe references to other assemblies in an implementation parameter
Goals:
Something along these lines would suffice.
{
"statements": {
"ac-1-smt-a-1-a": {
"uuid": "c504f6c4-7a24-4e39-b8a3-590a04fe8847",
"by-components": {
"4e3c-1243-8181-47d38-c9f91-f192a92935": {
"uuid": "4e3c1243-8181-47d3-8c9f-91f192a92935",
"props": [
{
"value": "partially implemented",
"ns": "https://oscal.test.gov",
"uuid": "05cb81ad-32c3-4944-9a10-2db579b6fb2a",
"name": "implementation-status"
}
],
"description": "This System Component require biometric login",
"parameter-settings": {
"ac-1-prm-1": {
"props": [
{
"ns": "https://oscal.test.gov",
"name": "role-id",
"value": "asset-administrator"
}
],
"values": [
"Asset Administrator"
]
},
"ac-1-prm-2": {
"values": [
"Mission/business process-level"
]
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
There are parameters that seem to describe component-references, party references role and/or party references and probably more. It's a large catalog.
Dependencies:
Accepted Value standardization consensus
Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] Parameter Setting Accepted prop names are documented ("component-uuid","role-id" etc...)
- [ ] (Optional) by-component Accepted prop names are documented
@SilentEsper Can you provide a list of the property names that are concerning you? A bit more detail will help us figure out how best to address this.
We can add props. We should also consider supporting responsible role here.