[mile] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3410)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 15 November 2012 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.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 07E3C21F84E0 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:07:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.507, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxngSOLLT0ps for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2D221F84DB for <mile@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B28EDB1E004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:59:59 -0800 (PST)
To: Kathleen.Moriarty@emc.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, turners@ieca.com, Kathleen.Moriarty@emc.com, trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20121115140000.B28EDB1E004@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:59:59 -0800
Cc: mile@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [mile] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6545 (3410)
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:07:04 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6545,
"Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6545&eid=3410

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Text update for AuthorizationStatus value defintions <Kathleen.Moriarty@emc.com>

Section: 5.2

Original Text
-------------
    AuthorizationStatus

         One.  REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The listed values are used to provide a
         response to the requesting CSIRT of the status of a Request,
         Report, or Query.

         1.  Approved.  The trace was approved and will begin in the
             current SP.

         2.  Denied.  The trace was denied in the current SP.  The next
             closest SP can use this message to filter traffic from the
             upstream SP using the example packet to help mitigate the
             effects of the attack as close to the source as possible.
             The Acknowledgement message must be passed back to the
             originator and a Result message must be used from the
             closest SP to the source in order to indicate actions taken
             in the IODEF History class.

Corrected Text
--------------
    AuthorizationStatus

         One.  REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The listed values are used to provide a
         response to the requesting CSIRT of the status of a Request,
         Report, or Query.

         1.  Approved.  The request was approved and will be processed
             and acted upon by the receiving SP or the report was
             approved for processing.

         2.  Denied.  The message was denied for processing by the 
             recipient for the reasons provided in the Justification.
             If the RID message was a Trace, the next closest SP can
             use this message to filter traffic from the upstream SP
             using the example packet to help mitigate the effects of
             the attack as close to the source as possible.  The
             Acknowledgement message must be passed back to the
             originator and a Result message must be used from the
             closest SP to the source in order to indicate actions taken
             in the IODEF History class.

Notes
-----
The definition for Approved and Denied was confusing to an implementer.  Although the AuthorizationStatus was broadly defined and the message flows in 7 show the Acknowledgement applies to all messages, the Approved and Denied were being read as specific to Trace Requests.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6545 (draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
Publication Date    : April 2012
Author(s)           : K. Moriarty
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG