Re: [mile] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> Sorry, ball was in my court there. The changes in -25 fix my
> issue so I've cleared.

Great, thanks!
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> On 07/07/16 01:42, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> Roman,
>>
>> I'm looking at Stephen's updated discuss and think he may want more on
>> the confidence surrounding threat actors and that's reasonable.  Can
>> you look at his updated discuss point and respond?  It would be nice
>> to wrap this up soon if we can.
>>
>> Alissa's discuss remains, so we can follow up on that one next.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen!
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:15 PM
>>>> To: Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; mile-
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with
>>>> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hiya,
>>>>
>>>> On 24/06/16 19:22, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
>>>>>>> TBH, I wonder if the right thing here is to say that documents
>>>>>>> with ambiguous confidence elements MUST be treated as if the
>>>>>>> confidence element were omitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would that work?
>>>>> Definitely.  Would this last sentence address your concern:
>>>>>
>>>>> "... While the sender of the
>>>>> document may explicitly convey confidence in the data in a granular
>>>>> way using the Confidence class, the recipient is free to ignore or
>>>>> refine this information to make its own assessment.
>>>>> [start new text]
>>>>> Ambiguous Confidence elements in a document MUST be ignored by the
>>>> recipient.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a restatement of your suggestion to match the existing style of the text.
>>>>
>>>> That'd work for me. I'd word it more like:
>>>>
>>>> "Ambiguous Confidence elements (where it is unclear to which of a set
>>>> of other elements the Confidence element relates) in a document MUST be
>>>> ignored by the recipient."
>>>
>>> -25 was just posted.  It includes the exact text above.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help in improving the draft.
>>>
>>> Roman
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen