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

["Adam W. Montville" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Tom Taylor <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Seems like you need a reference to 5070-bis rather than 5070, then.

Yes, that’s probably correct.


> 
> 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.
>> 
>>