[Feedback]: role-id naming convention expected for leveraged-system-poc

[Telos-sa]

This is a ...

question - need to understand something

This relates to ...

• the FedRAMP OSCAL Registry
• the FedRAMP OSCAL baselines
• the Guide to OSCAL-based FedRAMP Content
• the Guide to OSCAL-based FedRAMP System Security Plans (SSP)
• the Guide to OSCAL-based FedRAMP Security Assessment Plans (SAP)
• the Guide to OSCAL-based FedRAMP Security Assessment Results (SAR)
• the Guide to OSCAL-based FedRAMP Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
• the FedRAMP SSP OSCAL Template (JSON or XML Format)
• the FedRAMP SAP OSCAL Template (JSON or XML Format)
• the FedRAMP SAR OSCAL Template (JSON or XML Format)
• the FedRAMP POA&M OSCAL Template (JSON or XML Format)
• the FedRAMP OSCAL Validations

What is your feedback?

Please confirm the required naming convention. In Rev5 SSP documentation, only references party-uuid>uuid-of-leveraged-system-poc
on page 26.
Need confirmation that the expected role id for leveraged authorizations is leveraged-system-poc

Reviewed role-ids in latest model and didnt find reference to role ID within model requirements. If locally defined, does it need some sort of associated link to denote this is FedRAMP specific?

Where, exactly?

Guide_to_OSCAL-based_FedRAMP_System_Security_Plans_(SSP)_rev5-10.pdf

Other information

No response

[aj-stein-gsa]

Seeing as we have transitioned to the web-based documentation, we document leveraged-system-poc as intended complete with an example.

https://automate.fedramp.gov/documentation/ssp/4-ssp-template-to-oscal-mapping/#leveraged-fedramp-authorized-services

As it goes for the OSCAL models, we do not have a constraint yet for this, but there will soon be one slated in #807.

As this is a documentation and I have located a clear answer, I will close for now. If I misunderstood and you want to reframe the question, please feel free to open the issue and we can discuss further.