IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mile] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: (with DISCUSS)

"Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Tue, 19 November 2019 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
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 ADB9912008A; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:34:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nict.go.jp
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 mL_srC604oHc; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mo-csw.securemx.jp (mo-csw1115.securemx.jp [210.130.202.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B63112006F; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:33:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;a=rsa-sha256;c=relaxed/simple;d=nict.go.jp;h=From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding;i=takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp;s=20190225.smx;t= 1574138031; x=1575347631; bh=83uB5aLzH/w+whX0rH4KKU59J5jfCTGZan9MKz3W8q0=; b=fQ7 3emkyvLW5LPrQws60t8ph96n/lJJ3Zr7wM09s82e4+Z3NN6832Pq/AxuPOrJ7WnG+5Has7NLFBow0 q6gEGC51rrpgP1Y0tVAv8Cvck/tRef1HMZkkFKnrOfW30jJLovA3Po/jJimkwChs972ovDGAg6ihM N+pNNtsWMBY2isBxeve9IGYxqfn2am80uB9MOBSUf4l/nw8whRNQ1sMSQe5SBF4T7OXCy5edESW/3 k8/n15EleVmcXeBKJJmRxWTBHZ7U47nRPo5jMZVkEjOg4TZsaWEb4TUr1nM9Ij7waj0zbO+hrgP42 H/vgqEVJDJddlBrkOlHKcXH/Dy11nBg==;
Received: by mo-csw.securemx.jp (mx-mo-csw1115) id xAJ4XpEZ002800; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:33:51 +0900
X-Iguazu-Qid: 2wHH8JGvt9ogwWimcm
X-Iguazu-QSIG: v=2; s=0; t=1574138030; q=2wHH8JGvt9ogwWimcm; m=OqkIj2XT1iMkwLadQEvo7FPhAW1ddgYnBz6y5E/GqFE=
Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (mail2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.15]) by relay.securemx.jp (mx-mr1113) id xAJ4XnBQ033385 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:33:50 +0900
Received: from LAPTOP9DLCDU5S (ssh1.nict.go.jp [133.243.3.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server2) with ESMTPSA id C6A6D2E301; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:33:48 +0900 (JST)
From: Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
To: 'Suresh Krishnan' <suresh@kaloom.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef@ietf.org, 'Nancy Cam-Winget' <ncamwing@cisco.com>, mile-chairs@ietf.org, mile@ietf.org
References: <156753980990.20413.191085760147429684.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156753980990.20413.191085760147429684.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:33:45 -0800
Message-ID: <04fd01d59e92$892eb0d0$9b8c1270$@nict.go.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQKuoc6tIXShaX5k7hDTyBSkDeYH+6Xf4OOg
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/Wbu9jRuVUK-r7rGVkBjo76DztrQ>
Subject: Re: [mile] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: (with DISCUSS)
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 04:34:01 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thank you for your kind review, and I am sorry for not being able to reply you earlier.
Let me reply your comments here.

> * Section 5 (CDDL) and Appendix B (JSON schema)
> 
> I am trying to understand how "ipv6-net-mask" will be used since there is no such thing, and "ipv6-net" already covers the only possible way of denoting prefixes. Can you please clarify why and how you intend to use this? I remember reading and balloting on RFC7970 and it did not (IMHO rightly) have a category for this.

Yes, we agree on the point.
Since I would like to maintain compatibility with rfc7970 that still has "ipv6-net-mask", we kept it in the revised version of the draft.

Nevertheless, the point you raised is important, thus we added one sentence in Section 3.2 "The "ipv6-net-mask" type attribute of BulkObservable class remains available for the backward compatibility purpose, but the use of this attribute is not recommended because IPV6 does not use netmask any more."

I hope this description is ok for you.

The revised version is available below:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef/

Thank you, and kind regards,
Take


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:43 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef@ietf.org; Nancy Cam-Winget <ncamwing@cisco.com>; mile-chairs@ietf.org; ncamwing@cisco.com; mile@ietf.org
Subject: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: (with DISCUSS)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-jsoniodef-10: 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-jsoniodef/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 5 (CDDL) and Appendix B (JSON schema)

I am trying to understand how "ipv6-net-mask" will be used since there is no such thing, and "ipv6-net" already covers the only possible way of denoting prefixes. Can you please clarify why and how you intend to use this? I remember reading and balloting on RFC7970 and it did not (IMHO rightly) have a category for this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email