Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 07 January 2015 09:10 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CF41A898B; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:10:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 VA9u0g1tXxSu; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3961A1BD9; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:10:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BE82CCCF; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:10:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPpzr1qgcRF1; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:10:15 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0C52CC4D; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:10:15 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_31B0B6F3-2A95-4E96-8C49-2D6EF8D6695D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <548B9C96.70909@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:10:13 +0200
Message-Id: <954FCFCB-4D84-4518-974C-3493E2FC39EA@piuha.net>
References: <54873E73.8000101@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362AEF0D@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <548780F9.3010600@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362BE4AF@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <548B9C96.70909@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/4ZQ-ZsZCpwBAzlx-Y9MXG7M0M7A
Cc: "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>, Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:10:58 -0000
Tom, Thanks for the review. And thank you David and others for the updates. Jari On 13 Dec 2014, at 03:55, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, thanks. > > Tom > > On 12/12/2014 7:36 PM, Black, David wrote: >> Tom, >> >>> Seems like you need a reference to 5070-bis rather than 5070, then. >> >> Actually, I think it's a mix, as RFC 5070 is appropriate to reference for >> design rationale, but the 5070-bis draft will be the first use of this, >> and much of the discussion in the draft is independent of IODEF version. >> >> I believe that RFC 5070 [IODEF] needs to move to an informative reference, >> and an informative reference to the 5070-bis draft [IODEFv2] needs to be >> added. Both references would be informative as use of this format does not >> require implementation of any version of IODEF. >> >> To incorporate this reference update, I suggest the following text changes, >> many of which involve removing citations of RFC 5070 [IODEF] where the >> discussion is independent of IODEF version. Please let us know whether >> this set of changes looks sufficient. >> >> -- Abstract >> >> OLD >> but the IODEF Reference class >> (as specified in RFC 5070) does not indicate how to include both of >> these important pieces of information. >> NEW >> but the IODEF Reference class >> (as specified for IODEF v1 in RFC 5070) does not indicate how to include >> both of these important pieces of information. >> >> OLD >> While this memo does not update IODEF, it provides >> the ability for future revisions of IODEF to leverage the >> ReferenceName class herein described. >> NEW >> While this memo does not update IODEF v1, this enumeration reference >> format is used in IODEF v2 and is applicable to other formats that >> support this class of enumeration references. >> >> -- Section 1 Introduction >> >> There is an identified need to specify a format to include relevant >> enumeration values from other data representation formats in an IODEF >> [IODEF] document. It is anticipated that this requirement will exist >> in other standardization efforts within several IETF Working Groups, >> but the scope of this document pertains solely to IODEF [IODEF]. >> >> Remove both of the above "[IODEF]" citations as the above text is independent >> of IODEF version. To cover and cite IODEF versions, append the following >> sentence to the above paragraph: >> >> This format is used in IODEF v2 [IODEFv2] which replaces the original >> IODEF v1 [IODEF] specification. >> >> -- Section 2 >> >> The need is to place enumeration identifiers and their enumeration >> format references in IODEF's [IODEF] Reference class. There are >> several ways to accomplish this goal, but the most appropriate at >> this point is to require a specific structure for the ReferenceName >> string of the IODEF [IODEF] Reference class, and use an IANA registry >> to manage references to specific enumeration reference formats. >> >> Remove both "[IODEF]" citations as this discussion is independent of >> IODEF version. >> >> Per IODEF [IODEF] the ReferenceName is of type ML_STRING. >> >> No change, leave "[IODEF]" citation; that sentence is specific to IODEF v1. >> >> -- Section 2.3 (will be 2.2) Reference Method Applicability >> >> While the scope of this document pertains to IODEF [IODEF], it >> should be readily apparent that any standard needing to reference >> an enumeration identified by a specially formatted string can use >> this method of providing structure after the standard has been >> published. In effect, this method provides a standardized >> interface for enumeration formats, thus allowing a loose coupling >> between a given standard and the enumeration identifiers it needs >> to reference now and in the future. >> >> Remove "[IODEF]" citation, as this discussion is independent of IODEF >> version. >> >> -- Section 3 Security Considerations >> >> Remove all "[IODEF]" citations from this section, as the security >> considerations are independent of IODEF version. >> >> -- Section 4 IANA Considerations >> >> OLD >> This document specifies an identifier format for the IODEF [IODEF] >> ReferenceName string of the Reference class. All fields, >> including abbreviation, are mandatory. >> NEW >> This document specifies an enumeration reference identifier format. >> All fields, including abbreviation, are mandatory. >> >> The above rewrite aligns this text with text elsewhere (e.g., Section 2.3) >> indicating that this format has more general applicability beyond IODEF. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:09 PM >>> To: Black, David; Gen Art; draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference- >>> format.all@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 >>> >>> Seems like you need a reference to 5070-bis rather than 5070, then. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> On 09/12/2014 4:40 PM, Black, David wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> Thanks for reviewing this draft. >>>> >>>>> Major issues: I am having a hard time reconciling the extension >>>>> procedures specified in Section 5 of RFC 5070 [IODEF] with the content >>>>> of the draft. >>>> >>>> No surprise there, as those extension procedures are not being used, >>>> although one would have to be a mile WG participant to understand why ... >>>> >>>>> As I see it, you have added an attribute to ReferenceName, >>>>> and this is actually not covered by RFC 5070. As I understand it, 5.1 >>>>> covers ENUMs and 5.2 covers new classes. My conclusion is that this >>>>> document should update RFC 5070, describing how to add new attributes -- >>>>> or is that the equivalent of adding a new class? Even if it were a >>>>> simple matter of adding ENUMs, where are the ext- declarations called >>>>> for by Section 5.1 of RFC 5070? >>>> >>>> The mile WG is in the process of replacing RFC 5070 with a new IODEF v2 >>>> including a new XML schema that will use the enum ref format schema in >>>> the draft that you reviewed. Here's the 5070bis draft: >>>> >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis/ >>>> >>>> This topic was discussed in the mile WG meeting in Honolulu, and the >>>> course of action that resulted is to not update RFC 5070 or provide >>>> extension definitions for it because RFC 5070 will be replaced soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> --David >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:25 PM >>>>> To: Gen Art; draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format.all@tools.ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 >>>>> >>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>>> >>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>> >>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>>>> you may receive. >>>>> >>>>> Document: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10 >>>>> Reviewer: Tom Taylor >>>>> Review Date: 9/12/2014 >>>>> IETF LC End Date: 16/12/2014 >>>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >>>>> >>>>> Summary: Basically a well-written document with tiny nits. The "major >>>>> issue" may simply be a matter of my inexperience with XML schemas. >>>>> >>>>> Major issues: I am having a hard time reconciling the extension >>>>> procedures specified in Section 5 of RFC 5070 [IODEF] with the content >>>>> of the draft. As I see it, you have added an attribute to ReferenceName, >>>>> and this is actually not covered by RFC 5070. As I understand it, 5.1 >>>>> covers ENUMs and 5.2 covers new classes. My conclusion is that this >>>>> document should update RFC 5070, describing how to add new attributes -- >>>>> or is that the equivalent of adding a new class? Even if it were a >>>>> simple matter of adding ENUMs, where are the ext- declarations called >>>>> for by Section 5.1 of RFC 5070? >>>>> >>>>> Minor issues: >>>>> >>>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>>> >>>>> Tiny nit, third paragraph of Security Considerations: >>>>> s/third-party/third party/ (three times) >>>>> Former is an adjective, but contecxt requires a noun. >>>>> >>>>> The last sentence of the IANA Considerations section has a forward >>>>> reference to Section 6 which should instead be Section 5. >>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Black, David
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Adam W. Montville
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Black, David
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-e… Jari Arkko