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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

> On 24 Jun 2016, at 22:06, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alexey!
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roman D. Danyliw [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 2:09 PM
>> To: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>; Kathleen Moriarty
>> <[e-mail]>
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 1:00 PM
>>> To: Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Roman D.
>>> Danyliw <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG
>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070- [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22:
>>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>> 
>>> Hi Kathleen/Roman,
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016, at 08:53 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>> 
>>>> Do the recent updates address your concerns?
>>> 
>>> The latest version is an improvement.
>>> 
>>> One final point I am uncomfortable with:
>>> 
>>> 4.3.  Validation
>>> 
>>>   IODEF documents MUST be well-formed XML.  It is RECOMMENDED that
>>>   recipients validate the document against the schema described in
>>>   Section 8.  However, mere conformance to this schema is not
>>>   sufficient for a semantically valid IODEF document.  The text of
>>>   Section 3 describes further formatting and constraints; some that
>>>   cannot be conveniently encoded in the schema.  These MUST also be
>>>   considered by an IODEF implementation.  Furthermore, the enumerated
>>>   values present in this document are a static list that will be
>>>   incomplete over time as select attributes can be extended by a
>>>   corresponding IANA registry per Section 10.2.  Therefore, IODEF
>>>   implementations MUST periodically update their schema and MAY need
>> to
>>>   update their parsing algorithms to incorporate newly registered
>>>   values.
>>> 
>>> How realistic is this to require all implementations to update their
>>> schema? Is
>>> IODEFv2 intended to be used by IoT devices that might not have much
>>> battery/CPU power to do this?
>>> (I appreciate that this is different from my original DISCUSS point,
>>> but this is related to a change that was caused by my DISCUSS. So I
>>> would like to discuss this quickly.)
>> 
>> Makes sense.  What about updating the text to read: "IODEF implementation
>> SHOULD periodically ... ".
> 
> The s/MUST/SHOULD/ was made in -25.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Thank you!