IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mile] ROLIE draft

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 06 March 2014 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FDA1A00AF for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:37:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 E8mo2fPptfIv for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (plainfield.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E430D1A0068 for <mile@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id s26MbQea020717; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:37:26 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1394145446; bh=VkYf1WfkK2Q8CYTuaJdc+rFbGKh9iOxx16KG5x0jOcc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To; b=la1If/uydgPISJf5P14ZBhsPtbpqRAMyZGtCiP2h8hx0wpLV7NlcCo0Xsxh8deVtk S9DwJKgg+ZSlkrU2JEqOTfszHYzPldVm337BUvl+rzFit45p3zo4qulEGXv7BSlKB7 MtLucj+mc3MB9CJE/LZpisLfMVgb6EDwMU4yeulc=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1456) with ESMTP id s26MbTul005548; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:37:29 -0500
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:37:23 -0500
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
Thread-Topic: [mile] ROLIE draft
Thread-Index: AQHPN9xwy2T8jARwWUeRFbHJd2OxPJrRqIKAgAGk3wCAAVaAgIAAObwA///L8s4=
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 22:37:23 +0000
Message-ID: <AC83829F-AAF4-496C-8B54-46F337E45B5A@cert.org>
References: <CAO8WYFDn5z1-pBJhCLFVLTb0K_N6kkwqqfcas_yPzuFZt7AiPw@mail.gmail.com> <CF3B8928.60A37%kent_landfield@mcafee.com>, <1C9F17D1873AFA47A969C4DD98F98A750FAFC9BF@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <08d2c52644c340bf89b9e48f5c5af896@BLUPR09MB038.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>, <002401cf397c$c441d390$4cc57ab0$@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <002401cf397c$c441d390$4cc57ab0$@nict.go.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_AC83829FAAF4496C8B5446F337E45B5Acertorg_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/hCiTQ52QgHjAPHSbmbrmLYx2HT8
Cc: "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE draft
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Mar 2014 22:37:37 -0000

+1. I too believe we should further explore this approach.

On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:44 PM, "Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp<mailto:takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>> wrote:

I like the RESTful approach, so +1.

Take


From: mile [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Waltermire, David A.
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 2:17 AM
To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana); jfield@gopivotal.com<mailto:jfield@gopivotal.com>; mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE draft


+1 and implimenting something related in open source.



As I have mentioned before, I believe this type of approach addresses one of the chartered areas of work in SACM around "content repositories." I am interested in looking at how we can break up this work into multiple drafts (e.g., core, MILE use, SACM use) to make it applicable to both WGs, since parts of the draft is applicable to both WGs, but other aspects are specific to specialized use cases in each WG. I am willing to work on this if we can find a way to address both MILE and SACM use cases collectively through multiple drafts.

                                                                                                                                                                                      An

Thanks,

Dave



________________________________
From: mile <mile-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com<mailto:pkampana@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:51 PM
To: jfield@gopivotal.com<mailto:jfield@gopivotal.com>; mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE draft

I think rolie has advantages, so +1.
Panos

From: mile [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com<mailto:Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:45 PM
To: jfield@gopivotal.com<mailto:jfield@gopivotal.com>; mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE draft

+1

Kent Landfield
Mobile: +1.817.637.8026

From: John Field <jfield@gopivotal.com<mailto:jfield@gopivotal.com>>
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM
To: "mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>" <mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>>
Subject: [mile] ROLIE draft



Dear All,

The ROLIE draft ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-field-mile-rolie-02 ) whichproposed a RESTful approach to cyber security information sharing has not seen any activity in the last six months.   When the -00 draft was first posted, there was some definite interest in the idea, and there were subsequently -01 and -02 draft revisions.  However, in recent months the team has clearly been very busy pursuing other important work.

Unfortunately, due to other commitments I was not able to attend the WG meeting in London this week, and so I did not request time on the agenda.  But, given that many participants will be focused on MILE-related activities over the next few days, I thought this might be a good time to send a reminder and poll the team.  I'd like to know for planning purposes if the team thinks it will make sense to revisit the RESTful binding discussion at some point.  It would also be helpful to know if anyone has implemented, or might be considering an implementation.

Please indicate via, e.g. a simple  +1  if implementing or otherwise interested.

Thanks,
John
--

John P. Field | Security Architect | Pivotal

Direct: (908) 962-3394 | jfield@gopivotal.com<mailto:jfield@gopivotal.com>

<image001.png>
goPivotal.com<http://www.gopivotal.com/>
_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
mile@ietf.org<mailto:mile@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email