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