Re: [ESDS] Updated Draft Problem Statement 01
Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net> Mon, 03 March 2008 23:33 UTC
Return-Path: <esds-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-esds-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-esds-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79DF3A68F4;
Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-2.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id tfR6h2N7Dm8I; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2D63A6A97;
Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3253A6A97
for <esds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id sbpWunLvUCwL for <esds@core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.135])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780E33A67B3
for <esds@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:33:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned
X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from cpc2-cmbg9-0-0-cust593.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([82.16.102.82]:45257
helo=[10.0.1.3])
by ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.155]:25)
with esmtpsa (PLAIN:mgh12) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
id 1JWK9r-0000NL-IO (Exim 4.67)
(return-path <mgh12@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:33:23 +0000
Message-Id: <4034A75D-B633-4437-AA7D-6E5D83C419C1@cantab.net>
From: Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
To: esds@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:33:20 +0000
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
Subject: Re: [ESDS] Updated Draft Problem Statement 01
X-BeenThere: esds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of the ESDS \(Extensible Supplychain Discovery Service\)"
<esds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>,
<mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:esds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>,
<mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: esds-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: esds-bounces@ietf.org
Dear ESDS group, I have a comment regarding section 5.9 of the revised problem statement. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rezafard-esds-problem-statement-01#section-5.9 With reference to the sentence, " ESDS should give consideration to approaches for dealing with access control and visibility of extended information and protocols.", we probably need to be clearer about what we mean by ‘extended information’. Does 'extended information' refer to: 1) standard but non-mandatory data fields? OR 2) non-standard data fields specified by the user or technology provider? My observations: 1) non-mandatory data fields within events are not really extensions - just optional fields 2) requires an extension mechanism, to avoid collisions and promote forward compatibility as well as backward compatibility. Best regards, - Mark Harrison _______________________________________________ ESDS mailing list ESDS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds
- [ESDS] Updated Draft Problem Statement 01 Ali Rezafard
- Re: [ESDS] Updated Draft Problem Statement 01 Mark Harrison