Incorrect component definition $id in v1.2.0?

[degenaro]

Describe the bug

oscal_component_schema.json: "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.1.3/oscal-component-definition-schema.json",

Who is the bug affecting

All of the models including component-definition should be 1.2.0, no?

degenaro:release-schemas$ grep "1.1.3" *
oscal_component_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.1.3/oscal-component-definition-schema.json",
degenaro:release-schemas$ grep "1.2.0" *
oscal_assessment-plan_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-ap-schema.json",
oscal_assessment-results_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-ar-schema.json",
oscal_catalog_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-catalog-schema.json",
oscal_complete_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.0/1.2.0/oscal-complete-schema.json",
oscal_mapping_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-mapping-schema.json",
oscal_poam_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-poam-schema.json",
oscal_profile_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-profile-schema.json",
oscal_ssp_schema.json:  "$id" : "http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/1.2.0/oscal-ssp-schema.json",

What is affected by this bug

Metaschema

How do we replicate this issue

Download 1.2.0 schema. grep for "1.1.3".

Expected behavior (i.e. solution)

1.1.3 is expunged from 1.2.0 release.

Other comments

No response

Revisions

No response

[iMichaela]

The Component Definition oscal-version has been corrected from 1.1.3 to 1.2.0 . The fix is in the develop branch and will be part of the next patch.
OSCAL versions are updated manually and this was miss.

[degenaro]

@iMichaela Should port-ranges have start, end, transport? There seems to be a discrepancy between the schema and the reference https://pages.nist.gov/OSCAL-Reference/models/v1.2.0/component-definition/json-outline/ or am I wrong?

[iMichaela]

@iMichaela Should port-ranges have start, end, transport? There seems to be a discrepancy between the schema and the reference https://pages.nist.gov/OSCAL-Reference/models/v1.2.0/component-definition/json-outline/ or am I wrong?

Yes, there is a transport flag in the port-range assembly defined in the oscal_implementation-common_metaschema.xml file.

   <define-assembly name="port-range">
      <formal-name>Port Range</formal-name>
      <description>Where applicable this is the transport layer protocol port range an IPv4-based or IPv6-based service uses.</description>
      <define-flag name="start" as-type="non-negative-integer">
         <formal-name>Start</formal-name>
         <description>Indicates the starting port number in a port range for a transport layer protocol</description>
         <remarks>
            <p>Should be a number within a permitted range</p>
         </remarks>
      </define-flag>
      <define-flag name="end" as-type="non-negative-integer">
         <formal-name>End</formal-name>
         <description>Indicates the ending port number in a port range for a transport layer protocol</description>
         <remarks>
            <p>Should be a number within a permitted range</p>
         </remarks>
      </define-flag>
      <define-flag name="transport" as-type="token">
         <formal-name>Transport</formal-name>
         <description>Indicates the transport type.</description>
         <constraint>
            <allowed-values id="oscal-component-protocol-transport-values">
               <enum value="TCP">Transmission Control Protocol</enum>
               <enum value="UDP">User Datagram Protocol</enum>
            </allowed-values>
         </constraint>
      </define-flag>

Both, XML and JSON schemas must contain the correct port-range and port-ranges respectively assembly/field.

The documentation correctly reflects it. Thank you for catching it. @degenaro - could you please open a new issue. Thank you.