Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mile-enum-reference-format-10

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:25 PM
>> To: Gen Art; [e-mail]
>> 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.
>
>