Clarify protocol port-range docs for #2065

[aj-stein-gsa]

Committer Notes

This documentation fix clarifies ambiguity about how transport layer ports conform with standards that layer on top of the Internet Protocol (IPv4, IPv6 for now, potentially others in the future), not directly as only as "IPv4 port ranges" as it implies.

Closes #2065.

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]
• Do all automated CI/CD checks pass?

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

(For reviewers: The wiki has guidance on code review and overall issue review for completeness.)

Changes to Core Features:

• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable? This repo does not contain model-based/instance-based testing; we will update the GSA FedRAMP Automation Team's test suite accordingly for public review and ongoing use.
• Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)? Not in this repository, but will work with GSA FedRAMP Automation Team to update our constraints and examples accordingly.
• Have you updated all OSCAL website and readme documentation affected by the changes you made? Changes to the OSCAL website can be made in the docs/content directory of your branch.

[iMichaela]

@aj-stein-gsa - Port range error has been fixed. The fix is already in the develop branch

[aj-stein-gsa]

@aj-stein-gsa - Port range error has been fixed. The fix is already in the develop branch

This PR does not modify the constraint, it clarifies the documentation, specifically in a way that PR did not address. That documentation string has implied, before and after fix, that only mentions IPv4 and is not really about the Internet Protocol.

For context on a related but different issue, you will see discussion from this message and below about a (very common) misunderstandings of transport/IP layer confusion and how that misconstrues what port ranges are valid and/or recommended.

#1772 (comment)

[iMichaela]

@aj-stein-gsa - please submit the PR against the develop branch so we can expedite the patch release once reviewed.

[aj-stein-gsa]

@aj-stein-gsa - please submit the PR against the develop branch so we can expedite the patch release once reviewed.

Did you read explicitly what I wrote in the PR message and the related mailing list discussion about hotfix and following NIST OSCAL release guidance? It may seem redundant, but it is important. If you are not willing to accept this PR and accept my proposed plan, please let me know. I will close this PR and plan accordingly.

[aj-stein-gsa]

@iMichaela, against the documented guidance and my recommendations, per your request I rebased and this PR now targets develop. I would welcome the following.

1. Enable the GitHub Actions workflow to run the CI/CD actions and validate it is good for merge, post-approval.
2. A review to approve.

[iMichaela]

@aj-stein-gsa - Thank you.

[iMichaela]

LGTM