[mile] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7970 (6169)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 11 May 2020 18:15 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 BAD073A0C36 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.093, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 flDmRMrxySII for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC99A3A0977 for <mile@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4AC18F40741; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: rdd@cert.org, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, ncamwing@cisco.com, takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: fpoirotte@gmail.com, mile@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200511181500.4AC18F40741@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/QRwTTdb7QGaqiPbZAT9xCSaV-ys>
Subject: [mile] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7970 (6169)
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 18:15:17 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7970,
"The Incident Object Description Exchange Format Version 2".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6169

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Fran├žois Poirotte <fpoirotte@gmail.com>

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
4.4.  Incompatibilities with v1

   The IODEF data model in this document makes a number of changes to
   [RFC5070].  These changes were largely additive -- classes and
   enumerated values were added.  However, some incompatibilities
   between [RFC5070] and this new specification were introduced.  These
   incompatibilities are as follows:

   o  The IODEF-Document@version attribute is set to "2.0".

Corrected Text
--------------
4.4.  Incompatibilities with v1

   The IODEF data model in this document makes a number of changes to
   [RFC5070].  These changes were largely additive -- classes and
   enumerated values were added.  However, some incompatibilities
   between [RFC5070] and this new specification were introduced.  These
   incompatibilities are as follows:

   o  The IODEF-Document@version attribute is set to "2.00".

Notes
-----
The XML schema in section 8, the main text in section  3.1 and every other occurrence in the document state that the IODEF-Document@version attribute has a fixed value of "2.00".

The impact of this change on the overall technical meaning is limited since the incompatibility with IODEF v1 still remains, plus, every other reference to this attribute is correct.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7970 (draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Incident Object Description Exchange Format Version 2
Publication Date    : November 2016
Author(s)           : R. Danyliw
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG