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

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:26 AM Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <
pkampana@cisco.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the review Warren. We rephrased the sentence about interop
> to " Interoperability between RID agents implementing [RFC6545"] [RFC6546]
> was also confirmed. " so that it makes more sense.

Great, thanks.

All the rest of the nits and nit checker finds are also fixed. Also added a
> minimal IANA considerations section, since practically there are none.
>
> We still owe responses and fixes for Ben's comments. Will do that soon.

Okay.

Thanks,
W

>
> Panos
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mile [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:28 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance@ietf.org; mile@ietf.org;
> bill.wu@huawei.com; mile-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [mile] Warren Kumari's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)
>
> Warren Kumari 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'll also echo Ben / Benoit's comments and also thank Qin Wu for the
> OpsDir review. I've just seen that you have responded to it, thank you.
>
> I especially don't understand the:
> "Interoperability between RID agents and the standards, Use of  [RFC6545]
> and [RFC6546], were also proven in this exercise." -- is the "Use of"
> superfluous?
> I *think* so, and removing it fixes it, but I'm not quite sure what was
> intended.
>
> Many of the nit checker things seem simply to solve (like the use of
> non-documentation addresses) - these should be addressed.
>
> In addition I have some nits:
> Section3.1.
> "Minimal IODEF document IODEF includes one mandatory classes. "
> s/classes/class/
>
> Section 3.2.  Information represented
> " The implementer should  carefully look into the schema and decide
> classes to implement (or not)." -- I think this is missing a "which"
> between "decide" and "classes".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> mile@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile
>
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf