RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03

["Haleplidis Evangelos" <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Ben,

Thank you very much for the review and the discussion.
I have made all the relevant changes and have submitted (just in time it
seems) the new version.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:22 AM
> To: Haleplidis Evangelos
> Cc: [e-mail]; gen-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03
> 
> 
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Haleplidis Evangelos
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > [ΕΗ] I discussed with Joel with regards to the copyright issues.
> > The short answer is that this document draws directly from RFC5812
> and
> > relies on RFC5812 for such issues (as it uses the same boilerplate).
> >
> > Is this satisfactory?
> >
> 
> Hrmm. So it does. I somehow had it in my head it had the older
> boilerplate. I must have gotten that from one of the draft versions So,
> never mind :-)
> 
> (It's interesting that IDNits apparently looked at the date of
> publication of the first 00 draft, not the RFC. I'm curious the history
> of what happened with RFCs that were in-process works and had changes
> in authorship at the time 5378 was published--but that's not this
> draft's problem and should probably happen in a bar discussion.)
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>
> >> In this particular case, it's not clear to me if the MUST actually
> >> constrains a choice vs being a statement of fact. If you believe it
> >> to be the former then I am okay with it. The rewording might help.
> >>
> >
> > [ΕΗ] I reworded it and provided also an example. The text now reads:
> >
> > "When optional access type for components within a struct are
> defined,
> > these components's access type MUST override the access type of the
> > struct. For example if a struct has an access type of read-write but
> > has a component that is a read-only counter, the counter's access
> type MUST be read-only."
> >
> > I believe that it is an implementation constraint as there are two
> > possibilities (override or not). With the "MUST" we constrain it to
> > one (override).
> >
> > I also changed the two "it MUST be ignored" to "the access type MUST
> > be ignored" to better specify what "it" is.
> >
> 
> This helps.
> 
> For the record, my suggestion on more active voice was to say what must
> do the ignoring. But I think what you've got is good enough.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> >>
> >> No, I am not one.  Hopefully this will get a SecDir review as well.
> >> But that sort of review usually goes better if the Security
> >> Consideration section shows your reasoning, along the lines of
> >> listing the high-level types of changes, and for each, why it has no
> >> new security impact. Your response contains more of that sort of
> >> thing; it might help to add it (or parts of it) to the draft.
> >>
> >> I was a bit concerned that the default version for inheritance could
> >> be an issue, but you addressed that elsewhere.
> >>
> >> [...]=
> >
> > [ΕΗ] Ok, added part of this. Now the security considerations read the
> > following:
> >
> > This document adds only a few constructs to the initial model defined
> > in RFC5812, namely namely a new event, some new properties and a way
> > to define optional access types and complex metadata. These
> constructs
> > do not change the nature of the the initial model. In addition this
> > document addresses and clarifies an issue with the inheritance model
> > by introducing the version of the derivedFrom LFB class.
> > Thus the security considerations defined in RFC5812 applies to this
> > document as well as the changes proposed here are simply constructs
> to
> > write XML library definitions, as where in RFC5812 and have no effect
> > on security semantics with the protocol.
> >
> 
> You might consider adding something to say that the inheritance model
> change also does not change the security considerations. (Maybe it
> makes things better, by removing the potential for choosing a wrong
> parent class? Not sure if that's a security issue, unless there was
> some kind of parent-assertion attack.)
> 
>  It does seem like the inheritance change is a bona-fide extension, not
> just a clarification, since you added the version attribute.=