[Lager] Incoming AD review on draft-ietf-lager-specification-11.txt

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Thu, 24 March 2016 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: lager@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lager@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696C112D663 for <lager@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=DIemWpFQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=W846LvBv
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 6pB9l2nrlMnc for <lager@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE2412D5DE for <lager@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F065C214A5 for <lager@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:46:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=IFT R2xtcwTLoxTvntZdPT1UtAAk=; b=DIemWpFQgQusFaYLCLd3FOGHrmOp7FZaI+4 LKGIgLQKiP+1Rwxujn0yQbABxS68WSyiJQWebcLJfLQe2F4VoP3kNWzem5MJNgt5 Gjv51U0K2xxDRvRjb7CrjOvlQxllhOmU+yw61H9N/eDZnNLSDuhLmb6tp46w0YBm 5dPu7jWQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=IFTR2xtcwTLoxTvntZdPT1UtAAk=; b=W846L vBv5c4vpTzLdAyag1R3GX+9gEvET5zbgAQVA0Htch1wgIGFXC+xYixRLSEiNsDLv dNSna8JWh8AH5h27WyJofHQ6x/51lshf233RQoVsXhUVU1yUSDcEl6nDF8ETHQjc XJ6/EhRwrRbLTc49dl9I76lpf4Ga3WA7S7mpq8=
Received: by web5.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id B8805A66AEE; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1458841579.4011697.558814722.09946B62@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: joFA+bCWesE+WnCTSVA7L0qn+dIBQb8O0xf6s02klZ1J 1458841579
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: lager@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-eaa4717d
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:46:19 +0000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lager/EcutkiPxpwI0i7gcDNpLd4KXv-Q>
Subject: [Lager] Incoming AD review on draft-ietf-lager-specification-11.txt
X-BeenThere: lager@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Label Generation Rules <lager.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lager>, <mailto:lager-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lager/>
List-Post: <mailto:lager@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lager-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lager>, <mailto:lager-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:46:22 -0000

Hi,

This is a well written document which was generally a pleasure to read.
And thank you for addressing Barry's comments, as some of the issues he
raised got me confused as well.

I do have several minor comments/nits that I would like to be
addressed/discussed:


In Section 4.3.5

The first mention of "media type" needs a normative reference to RFC
2045. This would save developers time with trying to find out what
syntax to support and where to find registered media types.

In 6.1:

>A rule MAY contain the following as child elements:

Nit: This is an invalid use of MAY, because it is not an implementation
choice. I don't think you meant here that implementations don't have to
support any of the listed child elements?

In 7.6:

> If no actions are defined for the standard disposition values of
> "invalid", "blocked", "allocatable", "activated", then the following
> implicitly defined default actions are evaluated.

Are default actions defined if none of the actions for recommended
standard dispositions is defined or if any of them is not defined? For
example, I was thinking whether it would be Ok to just automatically
(and unconditionally) append these default actions to any LGR file for
purposes of evaluation? If any action for standard disposition value is
already defined and it would take precedence, so the corresponding
default action would be ignored.

In 11.3:

I think this section needs a bit of work. Firstly, it might be better to
say that Standard Dispositions MUST NOT contain ":" character in order
to prevent clashes with private dispositions.

Also, saying that registered values are lowercase ASCII (for example)
would be a good idea. If you want to only allow ASCII, but not to limit
values to lowercase letters, then you need to say whether values in the
registry are case-sensitive or not.

> Private Dispositions - This registry shall list dispositions that
> have been registered on a first-come first-served basis by third parties
> with the IANA. Such dispositions must take the form "entity:disposition"
> where the entity is a prefix that uniquely identifies the private user
> of the namespace. For example, "acme:reserved" could be a private extension
> used by the organization ACME to denote a disposition relating to reserved
> labels.

I think "entity" should be better specified. Which characters are
allowed? I would recommend either use domain names to describe ownerhip
(I can suggest some text) or use values from the PEN IANA registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-numbers>?

Please let me know if my comments are unclear.

Best Regards,
Alexey