Add Latest Example SSP Changes

[Gabeblis]

Committer Notes

Purpose

This PR aims to update our example SSP with the latest content from Brian's Example SSP Branch.

All Submissions:

• Have you selected the correct base branch per Contributing guidance?
• Have you set "Allow edits and access to secrets by maintainers"?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Have you squashed any non-relevant commits and commit messages? [instructions]
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
  - [ ] If applicable, have all FedRAMP Documents Related to OSCAL Adoption affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.? Not applicable.
• If applicable, does this PR reference the issue it addresses and explain how it addresses the issue?

By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Are we going to adjust the link[@rel="proof-of-compliance"] references to match the approach in the other PRs? I am running validation locally without external constraint files and the indices are failing.

Is this also just a refresh or is there more context I am missing? I think I understood from Google Chat, but just want to confirm. (Let's update that checklist. :wink)

[Gabeblis]

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

[aj-stein-gsa]

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

So we want to merge it ASAP or is it a work in progress then?

[Gabeblis]

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

So we want to merge it ASAP or is it a work in progress then?

Apologies for just noticing this comment, but the goal is to merge it ASAP.

[Rene2mt]

Nice work on the PR @Gabeblis. I was able to validate locally, and once the upstream changes are made, we'll be able to uncomment and things should work fine.

Minor style feedback: We had started to use "mock" UUIDs throughout the examples and documentations to make it easier for our audience to follow (see https://github.com/GSA/fedramp-automation/blob/dd4871a1e86482411567068f5c0e0a4afb0eae41/src/content/rev5/examples/UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md). This brings up a few questions:

1. Should we update the current PR for consistency? The latest fix corrected some validation errors by replacing (e.g., duplicate) UUIDs with real UUIDs instead of the "mock" UUIDs
2. Should we add this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page to this PR? I had seen it a while a go but had a hard time finding it again.
3. Should we add content from this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page somewhere on the documentation site or is this "inside baseball"?
4. I think we should close Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 without merging as it is stale, and the current PR has all the current modeling adjustments to date.

[Gabeblis]

Nice work on the PR @Gabeblis. I was able to validate locally, and once the upstream changes are made, we'll be able to uncomment and things should work fine.

Minor style feedback: We had started to use "mock" UUIDs throughout the examples and documentations to make it easier for our audience to follow (see https://github.com/GSA/fedramp-automation/blob/dd4871a1e86482411567068f5c0e0a4afb0eae41/src/content/rev5/examples/UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md). This brings up a few questions:

1. Should we update the current PR for consistency? The latest fix corrected some validation errors by replacing (e.g., duplicate) UUIDs with real UUIDs instead of the "mock" UUIDs
2. Should we add this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page to this PR? I had seen it a while a go but had a hard time finding it again.
3. Should we add content from this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page somewhere on the documentation site or is this "inside baseball"?
4. I think we should close Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 without merging as it is stale, and the current PR has all the current modeling adjustments to date.

1. I'll cross reference the website docs and make sure the UUIDs match.
2. Is this something we need to create or does the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page already exist and it just needs to be updated?
3. I personally don't think the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page would be beneficial to have on the website itself. I think that is something that can sit in the repo somewhere for people to reference when writing the documentation.
4. Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 has been closed.

[aj-stein-gsa]

1. I'll cross reference the website docs and make sure the UUIDs match.
2. Is this something we need to create or does the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page already exist and it just needs to be updated?

My take on this is that we do not really need the headache of documenting it yet unless we think it will add value for downstream developers, and that is pretty involved inside baseball at this time. That said, I am willing to discuss tomorrow morning why you are pitching publication of it, because if we commit to it, maintenance will be fun.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Iam not

[aj-stein-gsa]

I am cool with eventually approving and merging the separate content changes, but do we know why we are nixing the constraints, what happened there?