IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mile] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)

"Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com> Wed, 30 August 2017 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pkampana@cisco.com>
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 2353D132E3D; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 b0nJF11Bph3m; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13A13132E68; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2524; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504101844; x=1505311444; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=n61kpNkk46j3pCpZG89hZS8greva/WK2zKUMZLJZJKM=; b=O4cToqf/uIk64vufbDJTcjggOW8XqY/MXx9HT9tTJKBofN++R+OVlcEt 0qjjfMLXY1Kg8F08jjg1wlCi1MbVm30LgyYvlMZfnXwuCsZ3W1j44rVuK Wy28dX/niWqJR82SVsp7hrlKtNqSMyHsrm5Ul/GWbicP2m5l43zYoS5Qd I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CYAAABxaZZ/5pdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1pkgRUHjg6QGoFxlicOggQhC4UbAoQlPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQEBAQMBATg0CwwEAgEIEQQBAR8JBycLFAkIAgQBDQUIiFWBVBCucotGAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDKoICgU6BY4MohEIBEgFRhUIFigOOK4g+AodXjGqCG4VninKWQgEfOIECC3cVSYUYHBmBTnYBiDqBIwGBDgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,448,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="289260368"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2017 14:03:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (xch-aln-007.cisco.com [173.36.7.17]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7UE3uvP012038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:03:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) by XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (173.36.7.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:03:56 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:03:56 -0500
From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance@ietf.org>, "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "mile-chairs@ietf.org" <mile-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mile] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTIXlu4s0sg3O7I0ymNFW8vddKK6Kc7Qtw
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:03:56 +0000
Message-ID: <0f63d28cbbbf4a51ab5638545a5b7746@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com>
References: <150408835087.21627.1295197776346818174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150408835087.21627.1295197776346818174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [64.102.56.148]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/F0ZbwR9zKqrCi0yH_GAAUHsYXPA>
Subject: Re: [mile] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:04:14 -0000

Thank you Benoit.

Good catch on xml:lang. The "MUST" for xml:lang is not normative language we are introducing. It comes from RFC7970 where the XML schema for the Incident class defines the xml:lang attribute as non-optional/mandatory. The truth is that the text in RFC7970 does not reflect that, as the text mentions in as optional. The authors did intend to have xml:lang as mandatory as it is in the XML schema, so we are trying to get the discrepancy in the text fixed in RFC7970 with an errata. 

In summary, the "MUST" for xml:lang is not something new we are introducing in this draft.

Panos


-----Original Message-----
From: mile [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise (bclaise)
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:19 AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance@ietf.org; mile@ietf.org; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; mile-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [mile] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I noted the exact same point as Ben regarding the intended status.
This is really a BCP, right? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
However, I believe the combination of BCP and RFC2119 language is fine.
If I take a single sentence, as an example:

   An IODEF document MUST include
   at least an Incident class, an xml:lang attribute that defines the
   supported language an the IODEF version attribute.

Is this a specification coming from RFC 7970 (which I could not find, by browsing for a few minutes)? Or is this is a new specification of this "BCP"?

See also Qin's OPS DIR feedback.


_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
mile@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email