[mile] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 04:28 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mile@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F1C124207; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance@ietf.org, mile-chairs@ietf.org, ncamwing@cisco.com, mile@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150415370655.16892.11906802051251973830.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:28:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/cfDc3VSv8R7-nEIxqkfU6rGUFVI>
Subject: [mile] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:28:27 -0000
Adam Roach 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 agree with the other comments that this reads like a BCP, and should probably be re-characterized. The diagram in section 3.1 (which I would like to refer to by number but cannot -- consider adding figure numbers) appears to be using UML. While many software engineers will be familiar with this notation, it's likely that many also will not. A citation to ISO/IEC 19501:2005 to explain the meaning of the various symbols may be appropriate. Section 3.1 says "Implementers can refer to Appendix B and Section 7 of [RFC7970]..." which is ambiguous: it reads as if it is directing readers to Appendix B of RFC7970. I think it means Appendix B of this document. Suggest: "Implementers can refer to Section 7 of [RFC7970] and Appendix B...". Section 3.2 refers to the use of external schemata for reporting certain types of events. I would have expected to see guidance here (and/or in Section 4.2) indicating that the event report should be useful even for those implementations that don't comprehend these external schemata (unless this guidance already exists in the base IODEF definition; in which case, feel free to silently ignore this comment). It would be useful to provide a definition of the term "spear-phishing." ____ I assume the version of the ID Nits tool used to check this document varies from the one at <https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10.txt>. The following issues appear to be legitimate problems in need of addressing. If formatting of the XML documents without adding line breaks is considered critical (which seems possible but unlikely), consider base64-encoding them. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 28 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 53 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7970]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 2 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x.
- [mile] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mi… Adam Roach
- Re: [mile] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)