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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

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.