Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-18

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 15 February 2022 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352203A0C89; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KtPIdCJszoza; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09ADA3A0BD6; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id q198-20020a1ca7cf000000b0037bb52545c6so2460000wme.1; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mXB8gGprR4b4XIdg1HWfAcXQdah6q/FAcoz9PBrQk20=; b=l3imZHa5FxrpOE+7vrNIjuw7CcceOc6rqhvqOpsUMYN3gQLuxC8qw/n7wFEO3+0zjm k9f4znERQYJyIZGRmhjG9u0KJCUlIXy2NAebuawiUDfuRh98NyXokoOQlyfjxKsxLQvr JaSZbaA9CRN5fydzqMJjtW3SZ7IIX8a3zgmlAk0+8D03yhPfCN3X0dA3Rx0MckgWDm8E Fm9wRnf9RmSpEHQHe73UGcvpL2dGp/LKBs+CBdajiW+v/iY1Jnd/wwDxWeia6vFuCIMi XjfJ+Tendmen/JVEMHnrv54Xoxj84adjkimAkWhseR0Li1jArwVxMJIEYi/3tALcX0OJ 4FrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mXB8gGprR4b4XIdg1HWfAcXQdah6q/FAcoz9PBrQk20=; b=p3+ClWpj66N1NF66i63boKCcGlBF2wg0mSlEF6d89+jSytS7rj5xiH/XXUwOj6EXP5 6oU40L056ailAyXl19L8h8WWhZZ8moHhJefJmW2n+f1fy+LCF35S48tfWJAQUTrf1jY+ DIdS9eV0vMn/X885p2DCXtmvDtfeOktn7h1KJNSHBJi9f9WMa0OYwxkVFFkmVuYGEPnC xeAIC49xS6SzQmKC8U+avRNu2IdGDlHJw/2kd5JYkkqiajsfwm57Dad6fg1RVCbHCtgE BxQ6obuHfjwH07pQPQ6HZEEnXuORQWDfYyviHAIEimGGd3ow9zpaTjf47pnLaBFHjAoM PuwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338hce8pmKVTixEEpdpSP++43xFSjNi0lnn77MgF5+ZcbkJ3CBy B5Wey6QokZlKvWanttSctrZl5e7qM63Rc7vZ5Eo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxmJoMHCmTnBmWWRJH3jQNmbhizEL0z+glMP12ufEox9VeevM3N3R5e0Lc35wa+SaT5v4bvhbOknWmD7WM56yw=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd91:0:b0:37c:f44b:9c93 with SMTP id y17-20020a7bcd91000000b0037cf44b9c93mr4845272wmj.106.1644963461302; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162793413326.28486.5313832718804831776@ietfa.amsl.com> <VI1PR07MB422311B3C7F986AC3C8B4FC998349@VI1PR07MB4223.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB422311B3C7F986AC3C8B4FC998349@VI1PR07MB4223.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:17:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyTnGvv4meFmTWFqg81TKo7aEeyfpf6OPW3eKb_6AXzpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "sacm@ietf.org" <sacm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sacm-coswid.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sacm-coswid.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c78c0e05d815e68e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/IBf2EylM4CFci38WfOFQb82xP5Y>
Subject: Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-18
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:17:48 -0000

How does the document treat the resource costs of binding of prefixes to
XML Namespaces? Can't they go on forever if left unchecked?

Is this issue handled in a reference? If so, perhaps a pointer would be
helpful.

thanks,
Rob

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 2:05 PM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Rich: thank you very much for this review! Following the author’s response
> (on a different thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/aoMc3Y5ZaY5HiMcnQkxORfoNBgU/
> ), I have balloted No Objection.
>
>
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> *From: *last-call <last-call-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Rich Salz via
> Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> *Date: *Monday, 2 August 2021 at 21:56
> *To: *art@ietf.org <art@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>, sacm@ietf.org <
> sacm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sacm-coswid.all@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-sacm-coswid.all@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Last-Call] Artart last call review of
> draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-18
>
> Reviewer: Rich Salz
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the ART directorate reviewer for this document. The comments are
> mainly
> for the ADs, but others should treat them like any other last-call
> comments.
>
> I did not shell at the 187 CHF for the SWID specification.  Kudo's to the
> authors for doing something that seems (claims?) to be compatible, in an
> infoset way, and is also much more compact.  A couple of minor things.
>
> In 2.3, why are there three separate bools for corpus/patch/supplemental as
> opposed to a single enumeration? Can the tag-id be a digest of the source
> file?
> What are the implications of it not being unique? That should be listed in
> the
> security considerations.
>
> The expert review guidelines seem like "specification required" with some
> additional requirements on things like what the specification must say.
>
> I was surprised to see Carsten's full contact information given, as if he
> were
> a co-author.
>
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>