You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
RE: ID Numbers When referencing, it is much easier to reference a number, like GH-1, than a name. It also allows the policy name to change without breaking other references (see CIS benchmark example in previous comment). Like database primary/foreign keys; you want to reference the key so names and other things can change easily. When looking at most standards out there, like NIST, CIS, CSA, etc, they all reference each-other by specific numbers and not titles. See this link for one example of such a mapping. I would suggest doing the same here for both consistency and ease of reference.
RE: ID Numbers When referencing, it is much easier to reference a number, like
GH-1
, than a name. It also allows the policy name to change without breaking other references (see CIS benchmark example in previous comment). Like database primary/foreign keys; you want to reference the key so names and other things can change easily. When looking at most standards out there, like NIST, CIS, CSA, etc, they all reference each-other by specific numbers and not titles. See this link for one example of such a mapping. I would suggest doing the same here for both consistency and ease of reference.Originally posted by @derekmurawsky in #139 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: