Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of FC5070-bis
"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Sun, 28 July 2013 14:09 UTC
Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D8F21F9CC0 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DGrd+zHh8IrS for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shetland.sei.cmu.edu (shetland.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED0821F9CA8 for <mile@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by shetland.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id r6SE9RS9018607 for <mile@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:09:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1375020567; bh=VeHBsi829kOoz3EzEhUE3QjiM2YdnmuVk5pKaI3DF5Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=Fto+h7sjqgsyku356fm2jE2fbmlMFq32lOepRfzZ3Sy0zPc2vRXF0Ax5ThyvU3eIN oiMOrtAgYk55eGY3tPlBk/ITADkLq7WCjf/x/koCX48QA84Z6xqbcVijn+wZ7qB72r YM+f6sbO7Vtea1LuEDvZksPtnYIV491/9B0m5DTc=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id r6SE9Run023876 for <mile@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:09:27 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:09:27 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of FC5070-bis
Thread-Index: Ac6LmjQRu1YqHsgvR2uCsHU0pFw1SA==
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:09:26 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC13C55967@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of FC5070-bis
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:09:45 -0000
Hi Daniel: From: "Daniel Piggott" <daniel.piggott at switch2it.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:30:37 +0100 In-reply-to: <1C9F17D1873AFA47A969C4DD98F98A753C8AC8 at xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> References: <1C9F17D1873AFA47A969C4DD98F98A753C8AC8 at xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> List-id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org> > Hello, is there any update to my response to the document reviewed below? > Sent 6th June 22:57? Kathleen informed me it only made part of the distribution list. > Thks > Daniel > > Structured Cybersecurity Information draft (close to final): > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-sci/ > > Having looked through this draft and the example 11. Appendix III: An XML Example > > Would these be worth considering in the IODEF incident schema? > [snip] > A field for whether any device is virtual or physical? That's a good idea. Would a new attribute in System mean the need? Perhaps something like the following? +------------------------------+ | System | +------------------------------+ | ENUM restriction | | ENUM category | | STRING ext-category | | STRING interface | | ENUM spoofed | | ENUM virtualized | +------------------------------+ virtualized Optional. ENUM. An indication of whether the system is a physical or virtual device. 1. unknown. The disposition of the system is unknown. 2. yes. The system is virtual. 3. no. The system is physical. <xs:element name="System"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> ... <xs:attribute name="virtual" default="unknown"> <xs:simpleType> <xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKEN"> <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/> <xs:enumeration value="yes"/> <xs:enumeration value="no"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> </xs:attribute> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> As an aside, {unknown, yes, and no} are used in a few places in the schema. These should be abstracted. Roman
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Daniel Piggott
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Daniel Piggott
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Takeshi Takahashi
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Moriarty, Kathleen
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Moriarty, Kathleen
- Re: [mile] Request for draft reviews - review of … Roman D. Danyliw