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

["Roman D. Danyliw" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexey,

Thanks for the review.  Responses to the DISCUSS and COMMENTs are inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:34 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: Discuss
> 
> 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-rfc5070-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I will move to yes when the following issue is discussed.
> 
> Robert Sparks' SecDir review reminded me: I am concerned by the
> requirement to automatically download updates from IANA. If many devices
> or software programs implement IODEF and start doing schema validation,
> this can cause DDoS attack on IANA infrastructure.

A response to Robert's review can be found here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/hSH9Ot6L_VTb9zYcJNZzO_c-7dc

Note: I posed a few questions back to the working group, so not everything is resolved.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In 3.29.3.1: there is still a reference to RFC 822 (should be RFC 5322)

Actually, per Stephen's COMMENT on EAI (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/N52_1W9aXRw6gZSEqu0Y_vFuFh0), this likely needs to be RFC5336.  I'll make the change and also make it a real reference.  It's hard coded text now.

> In 4.1: it would be good to point to the W3C XML document about rules for
> escaping special characters. Otherwise readers might just think that all cases
> are covered in this section.

Makes sense.  I'd actually prefer to remove the specific examples and just cite reference.

Roman